Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1983 : hearing before the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Ninety-eighth Congress, first session, on H.R. 1510, June 15, 1983"

See other formats


IMMIGRATION  REFORM  AND  CONTROL  ACT  OF 

1983 


HEARINGS 

BEFORE  THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE  ON 
IMMIGRATION,  REFUGEES,  AND  INTERNATIONAL  LAW 

OF  THE 

COMMITTEE  ON  THE  JUDICIARY 
HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

NINETY-EIGHTH  CONGRESS 

FIRST  SESSION 
ON 

H.R.  1510 

IMMIGRATION  REFORM  AND  CONTROL  ACT  OF  1983 


MARCH  1,  2,  9,  10,  14,  AND  16,  1983 


Serial  No.  2 


Printed  for  the  use  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary 


IMMIGRATION  REFORM  AND  CONTROL  ACT  OF 

1983 


HEARINGS 

BEFORE  THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE  ON 
IMMIGRATION,  REFUGEES,  AND  INTERNATIONAL  LAW 

OF  THE 

COMMITTEE  ON  THE  eJUDICIARY 
HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

NINETY-EIGHTH  CONGRESS 

FIRST  SESSION 

ON 

H.R.  1510 

IMMIGRATION  REFORM  AND  CONTROL  ACT  OF  1983 


MARCH  1,  2,  9,  10,  14,  AND  16,  1983 


Serial  No.  2 


Printed  for  the  use  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary 


U.S.   GOVERNMENT   PRINTING   OFFICE 
18-556  0  WASHINGTON    :  1983 


COMMITTEE  ON  THE  JUDICIARY 


PETER  W.  RODINO, 
JACK  BROOKS,  Texas 
ROBERT  W.  KASTENMEIER,  Wisconsin 
DON  EDWARDS,  California 
JOHN  CONYERS,  Jr.,  Michigan 
JOHN  F.  SEIBERLING,  Ohio 
ROMANO  L.  MAZZOLI,  Kentucky 
WILLIAM  J.  HUGHES,  New  Jersey 
SAM  B.  HALL,  Jr.,  Texas 
MIKE  SYNAR,  Oklahoma 
PATRICIA  SCHROEDER,  Colorado 
DAN  GLICKMAN,  Kansas 
HAROLD  WASHINGTON,  Illinois 
BARNEY  FRANK,  Massachusetts 
GEO.  W.  CROCKETT,  Jr.,  Michigan 
CHARLES  E.  SCHUMER,  New  York 
BRUCE  A.  MORRISON,  Connecticut 
EDWARD  F.  FEIGHAN,  Ohio 
LAWRENCE  J.  SMITH,  Florida 
HOWARD  L.  BERMAN,  California 


Jr.,  New  Jersey,  Chairman 

HAMILTON  FISH,  Jr.,  New  York 
CARLOS  J.  MOORHEAD,  California 
HENRY  J.  HYDE,  Illinois 
THOMAS  N.  KINDNESS,  Ohio 
HAROLD  S.  SAWYER,  Michigan 
DAN  LUNGREN,  California 
F.  JAMES  SENSENBRENNER,  Jr., 

Wisconsin 
BILL  McCOLLUM,  Florida 
E.  CLAY  SHAW,  Jr.,  Florida 
GEORGE  W.  GEKAS,  Pennsylvania 
MICHAEL  DeWINE,  Ohio 


Alan  A.  Parker,  General  Counsel 

Garner  J.  Cline,  Staff  Director 

Franklin  S.  Polk,  Associate  Counsel 


h 

P 

-&- 

J— 

~0" 


Subcommittee  on  Immigration,  Refugees,  and  International  Law 


MAZZOLI,  Kentucky,  Chairman 

DAN  LUNGREN,  California 
BILL  McCOLLUM,  Florida 
HAMILTON  FISH,  Jr.,  New  York 


ROMANO  L 
SAM  B.  HALL,  Jr.,  Texas 
BARNEY  FRANK,  Massachusetts 
GEO.  W.  CROCKETT,  Jr.,  Michigan 
LAWRENCE  J.  SMITH,  Florida 

Arthur  P.  Endres,  Jr.,  Counsel 

Harris  B.  Miller,  Legislative  Assistant 

Peter  Regis,  Legislative  Assistant 

Peter  J.  Levinson,  Associate  Counsel 


(ID 


CONTENTS 

HEARINGS  HELD 

Page 

March  1,  1983 1 

March  2,  1983 175 

March  9,  1983 275 

March  10,  1983 431 

March  14,  1983 717 

March  16,  1983 945 

TEXT  OF  BILL 

H.R.  1510 6 

WITNESSES 

Baker,  Carole  L.,  executive  director.  Zero  Population  Growth 717 

Prepared  statement 755 

Barnes,  A.  James,  General  Counsel,  Department  of  Agriculture 1226 

Prepared  statement 1227 

Baron,  Marvin,  president-elect,  National  Association  for  Foreign  Student  Af- 
fairs   603 

Prepared  statement 608 

Bernsen,  Sam,  Washington  representative,  American  Council  on  Internation- 
al Personnel 301 

Prepared  statement 304 

Brown,  Ben  Jarratt,  executive  director.  Alliance  for  Immigration  Reform 142,  301 

Prepared  statement 321 

Brown,  Hon.  Hank,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of  Colorado...  131 

Prepared  statement 143 

Calhoun,  John,  director  of  business  development,  Intel  Corp.,  on  behalf  of  the 

American  Electronics  Association 603 

Prepared  statement 620 

Coelho,  Hon.  Tony,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of  California..  961 

Prepared  statement 964 

Coffey,  Matthew,  executive  director.  National  Association  of  Counties 1148 

Prepared  statement 1187 

Coleman,  Hon.  Ronald  D.,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of 

Texas 287 

Prepared  statement 292 

Dana,  Deane,  member,  board  of  supervisors.  County  of  Los  Angeles 1148 

Prepared  statement 1170 

Daub,  Hon.  Hal,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of  Nebraska 204 

Prepared  statement 206 

de   Haan,   Dale,   chairman.   Committee  on   Migration   and   Refugee   Affairs, 
American  Council  for  Voluntary  Agencies  and  director.  Immigration  and 

Refugee  Program,  Church  World  Service 782 

Prepared  statement 785 

Donahue,  Thomas,  secretary-treasurer,  AFL-CIO 432 

Prepared  statement ■ 437 

Edwards,  Hon.  Don,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of  Califor- 
nia   109 

Prepared  statement 110 

Ellsworth,  Perry  E.,  executive  vice  president.  National  Council  of  Agricultur- 
al Employees 457 

Prepared  statement 460 

(III) 


IV 

Page 

Ervin,  Robert,  member,  house  of  delegates,  American  Bar  Association 1097 

Prepared  statement 1099 

Fauntroy,  Hon.  Walter  E.,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  District  of 

Columbia 215 

Prepared  statement 220 

Feerst,  Irwin,  president.  Committee  of  Concerned  Electrical  and  Electronics 

Engineers 603 

Prepared  statement 652 

Garcia,  Hon.  Robert,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of  New 

York 114 

Prepared  statement 117 

Gim,  Benjamin,  chairman,  committee  on  Immigration  and  Refugees  Organiza- 
tion of  Chinese  Americans,  Inc 843 

Prepared  statement 922 

Gonzalez,  Josie,   legislative  chairperson,   immigration   section,   Los   Angeles 

County  Bar 1042 

Prepared  statement 1044 

Graham,  Otis,  vice  chairman  of  the  board,  Federation  for  American  Immigra- 
tion Reform 717 

Prepared  statement 720 

Gray,  Dr.  Paul  E.,  president,  Massachusetts  Institute  of  Technology  on  behalf 

of  the  American  Association  of  Universities 603 

Prepared  statement 646 

Hale,  Tom,  president,  California  Grape  &  Tree  Fruit  League 457 

Prepared  statement 468 

Hesburgh,  Father  Theodore,  Georgetown  University 576 

Prepared  statement 582 

Hill,  Hon.  John,  State  senator  from  Florida,  National  Conference  of  State 

Legislatures 1148 

Prepared  statement 1153 

Hornibrook,  R.  E.,  chairman  of  the  labor  committee,  National  Cattlemen's 

Association 457 

Prepared  statement 479 

Huerta,  Johm,  director,  immigration  projects,  Mexican-American  Legal  De- 
fense and  Educational  Fund 843 

Prepared  statement 846 

Hughes,  Hon.  William  J.,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of  New 

Jersey 175 

Prepared  statement 177 

Juceam,  Robert,  president,  American  Immigration  Lawyers  Association 1072 

Prepared  statement 1075 

Kazen,  Hon.  Abraham,  Jr.,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of 

Texas 287 

Kee,  Norman  Lau,  chairman.  Task  Force  on  Immigration  and  Refugee  Policy, 

U.S.-Asia  Institute 843 

Prepared  statement 928 

Knicely,  Howard,  vice  president,  human  relations,  TRW,  on  behalf  of  the 

National  Association  of  Manufacturers  and  the  Business  Roundtable 301 

Prepared  statement 329 

Kohr,  Howard,  assistant  Washington  representative,  American  Jewish  Com- 
mittee   782 

Prepared  statement 814 

Krauskopfh,  James  A.,  commissioner.  Human  Resources  Administration,  City 

of  New  York,  on  behalf  of  the  U.S.  Conference  of  Mayors 1148 

Prepared  statement 1197 

Leland,  Hon.  Mickey,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of  Texas 191 

Prepared  statement 194 

Lewis,  Dr.  David  C,  American  Association  of  Engineering  Societies 603 

Prepared  statement 675 

Lujan,  Hon.  Manuel,  Jr.,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of  New 

Mexico 167 

Prepared  statement 169 

McMahon,  Thomas,  executive  director.  Environmental  Fund 717 

Prepared  statement 741 

Mica,  Hon.  Dan,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of  Florida 184 

Prepared  statement 186 


V 


e 


Moore,  Colin,  president,  Caribbean  Action  Lobby  and  Haitian  Holy  Ghost  P^^' 

Fathers 985 

PtpostgcI  stfltGrncnt ivuo 

Nelson,  Hon.  Alan,  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service 242 

pTPOsrcd  st-citGiTiGrit 

Norton,  John  R.  Ill,  chairman  of  the  board.  United  Fresh  Fruit  and  Vegetable 

Association j^ 

PfGDSrGcl  StfltGITlGnt  tOo 

Owens,  Hon.  Major  R.,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of  New 

York 985 

P^posrcd  ststGrnGnt i/y^ 

Pellechio,  Anthony  J.,  Deputy  Assistant  Secretary  for  Income  Security  Policy, 

Department  of  Health  and  Human  Services 382 

Prepared  statement •••■"•■••••■.;•■ "■" 

Pingree,  David,  secretary,  Florida  Department  of  Health  and  Rehabilitative 

Services ,  on  behalf  of  the  National  Governors  Association 1 148 

Reed,  Billy,  director,  American  Engineering  Association  603 

Prepared  statement •  '^°^ 

Roberti,  Hon.  David,  State  senator  from  California,  National  Conference  of 

State  Legislatures 1148 

pTPDfirGd  ststdTiGrit iOo 

Roberts,    Maurice   A.,   editor,    interpreter   Releases,    and   former   chairman, 

Board  of  Immigration  Appeals 945 

P'rpD3.T*G(i  stB-tGrnGnt y^o 

Rodino,  Hon.  Peter  W.,  Jr.,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of 

New  Jersey,  prepared  statement 275 

Roybal,  Hon.  Edward  R.,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of 

California 973 

Prepared  statement ••■ "'° 

Scheuer,  Hon.  James  H.,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of  New 

York 1019 

Prepared  statement ^^^'^ 

Searby,   Robert,   Deputy   Under  Secretary  for  International  Labor  Affairs, 

Department  of  Labor 1209 

Pfpoj^ypn  stfitPTTiGrit                   i.^i-^ 

Seeligson,  Frates,  president,  Texas  and  Southwestern  Cattle  Raisers  Associ- 
ation   457 

Prepared  statement - •  *^^ 

Sensenbrenner,  F.  James,  Jr.,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of 

Wisconsin 278 

Prepared  statement 280 

Shattuck,  John,  legislative  director,  American  Civil  Liberties  Union 1061 

Prepared  statement ■  1064 

Shaw,  Hon.  E.  Clay,  Jr.,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of 

Florida 131 

Prepared  statement 132 

Simmons,  Althea,  executive  director.  National  Association  for  the  Advance- 
ment of  Colored  People ^82 

PrGD3.rGcl  ststGiTiGnt        o^D 

Smith,  Hon.  William  French,  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States 145 

Prepared  statement 151 

Sorn,  George,  assistant  general  manager,  Florida  Fruit  and  Vegetable  Associ- 
ation   457 

Prepared  statement '^^'^ 

Thompson,  Robert  T.,  vice  chairman,  board  of  directors,  and  chairman,  labor 

relations  committee.  Chamber  of  Commerce  of  the  United  States 301 

Prepared  statement 342 

Toohey,  William  D.,  president,  Travel  Industry  of  America 301 

Prepared  statement • 366 

Torres,  Arnold,  national  executive  director.  League  of  United  Latin  American 

Citizens 843 

Prepared  statement 902 

Towns,  Hon.  Edolphus,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of  New 

York 133 

Prepared  statement 134 


VI 

Van  Maren,  James  G.,  director,  agricultural  department,  California  Chamber  ^^^ 

of  Commerce 301 

Prepared  statement 356 

von  Mehren,  George  M.,  vice  chairman.  Immigration  Committee  National 

Foreign  Trade  Council 301 

Prepared  statement 363 

Voss,  Henry  J.,  member,  executive  committee,  American  Farm  Bureau 457,  531 

Prepared  statement 533 

Williams,  Russell  R.,  president,  Agricultural  Producers,  Inc 457 

Prepared  statement 544 

Wilson,  Hon.  Charles,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of  Texas, 

prepared  statement 431 

Wright,  Hon.  Jim,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of  Texas 122 

ADDITIONAL  MATERIAL 

American  Civil  Liberties  Union,  memoradums  dated  March  16,  1983,  to  House 
Judiciary  committee: 
Civil  Liberties  and  the  Undocumented  Aliens:  The  Case  for  Legalization ...     1400 

Employer  Sanctions  and  Civil  Rights 1422 

Immigration:  Asylum,  Exclusion,  and  Deportation 1412 

Anti-Defamation  League  of  B'nai  B'rith,  prepared  statement 1361 

Arnett,  Dixon,  Arlington,  Va.,  letter  dated  March  11,  1983,  to  Hon.  Romano 
L.  Mazzoli 1388 

Asian  American  Legal  Defense  and  Education  Fund,  prepared  statement 1296 

Association  of  the  Bar  of  the  City  of  New  York,  prepared  statement 1340 

Bedwell,  Beverly  A.,  Department  of  Health  and  Human  Services,  letter  dated 
July  6,  1982,  to  Sandy  Crank 1506 

Bower,  Stephanie,  legislative  representative,  United  Farm  Workers  of  Amer- 
ica, AFL-CIO,  letter  dated  March  30,  1983,  to  Hon.  Romano  L.  Mazzoli 1373 

Burton,  Gene  E.,  dean.  School  of  Business  and  Administrative  Sciences,  Cali- 
fornia State  University,  Fresno,  letter  dated  March  15,  1983,  to  Hon. 
Romano  L.  Mazzoli 1327 

Chan,  Liza  Cheuk  May,  attorney,  Clawson,  Mich.,  letter  dated  March  7,  1983, 
to  Subcommittee  on  Immigration,  Refugees,  and  International  Law 1384 

Choo,  Sook  Nam,  staff  attorney,  Asian  American  Legal  Defense  and  Educa- 
tion Fund,  letter  dated  March  23,  1983,  to  Hon.  Romano  L.  Mazzoli 1295 

Crockett,  Hon.  Geo.  W.,  Jr.,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of 
Michigan,  prepared  statement 1237 

de  la  Garza,  Hon.  E.,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of  Texas, 

prepared  statement 1253 

Donnelly,  Thomas  R.,  Jr.,  Assistant  Secretary  for  Legislation,  Office  of  the 
Secretary  of  Health  and  Human  Services,  letter  to  Hon.  Romano  L.  Maz- 
zoli      1466 

Federation  for  American  Immigration  Reform,  prepared  statement 1305 

Fascell,  Hon.  Dante  B.,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of  Flor- 
ida, prepared  statement 1247 

Fauntroy,  Hon.  Walter  E.,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  District  of 
Columbia,  letter  dated  March  15,  1983,  to  Hon.  Romano  L.  Mazzoli 1258 

Finger,  Justin  J.,  director,  national  civil  rights  division,  Anti-Defamation 
League  of  B'nai  B'rith,  letter  dated  March  9,  1983,  to  Hon.  Romano  L. 
Mazzoli 1360 

Fleischmann,  Werner  J.,  prepared  statement 1316 

Frank,  Hon.  Barney,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of  Massa- 
chusetts, letter  dated  March  22,  1983,  to  Hon.  Romano  L.  Mazzoli 1315 

Gandhi,   Dr.   Natwar   M.,   Indian-American   Forum   for  Political   Education, 

prepared  statement 1335 

Helton,  Arthur  C,  chairman,  the  Association  for  the  Bar  of  the  City  of  New 
York,  letter  dated  March  18,  1983,  to  House  Judiciary  Committee 1339 

Lamm,  Hon.  Richard  D.,  Governor,  State  of  Colorado,  letter  dated  March  23, 

1983,  to  Hon.  Romano  L.  Mazzoli 1290 

McConnell,  Robert  W.,  Assistant  Attorney  General,  Department  of  Justice, 
letter  dated  April  4,  1983,  to  Hon.  Romano  L.  Mazzoli 1441 

McDermott,  Albert  L.,  Washington  representative,  American  Hotel  &  Motel 

Association,  letter  dated  March  15,  1983,  to  Hon.  Romano  L.  Mazzoli 1309 

Mica,  Hon.  Dan,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of  Florida, 

letter  dated  March  10,  1983,  to  Hon.  Romano  L.  Mazzoli 1263 


VII 

Miller,  Tom,  Tucson,  Ariz.,  letter  dated  March  9,  1983,  to  Hon.  Romano  L.  P^e^ 

Mazzoli 1380 

Morrison,  Hon.  Sid,  a  Representative  in  Congress  from  the  State  of  Washing- 
ton, prepared  statement 1244 

National  Chinese  Welfare  Council,  prepared  statement 1395 

National  Restaurant  Association,  prepared  statement 1313 

Neville,  Robert,  executive  vice  president.  National  Restaurant  Association, 

letter  dated  March  17,  1983,  to  Hon.  Romano  L.  Mazzoli 1312 

Robinson,  Randall,  executive  director,  Transafrica  prepared  statement 1238 

Schabarum,  Pete,  supervisor,  first  district,  Board  of  Supervisors,  County  of 

Los  Angeles,  letter  dated  March  7,  1983,  to  Hon.  Romano  L.  Mazzoli 1356 

Tsui,  T.   L.,  executive  secretary.  National  Chinese  Welfare  Council,   letter 

dated  March  30,  1983,  to  Hon.  Romano  L.  Mazzoli 1394 

Undocumented  workers  as  contributors  to  society  (report) 1369 

United  Farm  Workers  of  America,  AFL-CIO,  prepared  statement 1374 

Vempaty,  Krishna  M.,  chairperson,   immigration  committee.  Federation  of 

Indian  Association,  letter  dated  March  11,  1983,  to  Hon.  Romano  L.  Mazzoli  1358 

Western  Range  Association,  prepared  statement 1364 

Whittick,  Kellogg  H.,  prepared  statement 1330 


IMMIGRATION  REFORM  AND  CONTROL  ACT  OF 

1983 


TUESDAY,  MARCH  1,  1983 

House  of  Representatives, 
Subcommittee  on  Immigration, 
Refugees,  and  International  Law, 

Commitee  on  the  Judiciary, 

Washington,  D.C. 

The  subcommittee  met  at  9  a.m.  in  room  2237  of  the  Rayburn 
House  Office  Building,  the  Honorable  Romano  L.  Mazzoli  (chair- 
man of  the  subcommittee)  presiding. 

Present:  Representatives  Mazzoli,  Lungren,  Fish,  Hall,  Crockett, 
and  Smith. 

Staff  present:  Arthur  P.  Endres,  Jr.,  counsel;  and  Peter  J.  Levin- 
son,  associate  counsel. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  subcommittee  will  come  to  order. 

Without  objection,  the  subcommittee  will  permit  in  this  hearing 
room  television  broadcasters  or  still  photography  in  accordance 
with  committee  rule  V. 

This  is  the  first  in  a  series  of  hearings  we  have  scheduled  for  the 
next  3  weeks  on  H.R.  1510,  the  Immigration  Reform  and  Control 
Act  of  1983.  This  bill  is  the  same  as  that  reported  out  of  the  House 
Judiciary  Committee  in  September  last  year,  considered  and  not  fi- 
nally acted  upon  during  the  lameduck  session  of  the  97th  Congress. 

It  is  a  good  bill  with  widespread  support.  It  is  a  product  of  more 
than  a  decade  of  research,  analysis,  and  hearings  by  the  Congress, 
the  three  past  administrations  and  the  present,  the  Select  Commit- 
tee on  Immigration  and  Refugee  Policy,  President  Reagan's  task 
force  of  Cabinet  members,  and  numerous  other  independent  stud- 
ies. 

It  is  no  secret  that  the  present  immigration  situation  in  our 
Nation  is  chaotic.  Many  describe  it  as  out  of  control.  Although  we 
created  a  substantial  hearing  record  in  the  last  Congress  on  this 
particular  legislation,  the  subcommittee  feels  it  desirable  that  we 
refresh  that  record  and  examine  further  and  consider  any  propos- 
als which  could  strengthen  H.R.  1510. 

This  bill  contains  the  essential  elements  to  bring  order  to  our 
Nation's  immigration  system. 

First,  it  imposes  penalties  on  employers  who  knowingly  hire  un- 
documented aliens.  The  purpose  of  this  provision  is  to  eliminate 
the  lure  of  jobs  which  is  the  main  reason  that  aliens  come  to  this 
country  illegally. 

(1) 


The  record  is  not  clear  how  many  jobs  these  undocumented 
aliens  are  taking  away  from  Americans,  but  it  is  clear  that  there  is 
some  displacement,  especially  at  the  lower  end  of  the  economic 
scale.  H.R.  1510  protects  persons  against  discrimination  in  employ- 
ment.- However,  the  possibility  of  unintended  discrimination  trou- 
bles many  organizations  and  groups.  In  these  hearings,  I  hope  we 
receive  suggestions  which  could  strengthen  H.R.  1510  even  further 
in  its  antidiscrimination  provisions. 

Second,  the  bill  establishes  a  fair  and  expeditious  system  for  ad- 
judicating asylum  claims.  It  is  inexcusable  to  have  a  backlog  of 
140,000  asylum  cases  pending  as  we  have  today.  This  is  a  true  indi- 
cation that  the  present  system  is  not  working  and  that  something 
must  be  done  to  correct  it. 

Third,  H.R.  1510  streamlines  some  aspects  of  the  H-2  program 
which  allows  foreign  workers  to  enter  our  country  for  short  dura- 
tions of  time  to  take  specific  jobs  of  a  temporary  nature.  Every 
effort  is  made  to  provide  jobs  to  American  workers  who  want  them 
before  triggering  the  H-2  provisions. 

The  fourth  element  of  the  bill  is  a  carefully  controlled,  case-by- 
case  determination  by  which  certain  aliens,  who  have  been  in  the 
United  States  illegally  for  various  periods  of  time,  can  become  le- 
galized. The  bill  proposes  a  two-tiered  legalization  program  grant- 
ing permanent  resident  status  or  temporary  resident  status  de- 
pending on  how  long  the  person  has  been  in  the  country. 

There  are  various  other  parts  of  significance  in  the  bill  which  I 
would  like  to  cover  by  asking  unanimous  consent  at  this  point  to 
insert  into  the  record  a  summary  of  H.R.  1510. 

Without  objection,  so  ordered. 

[The  summary  and  a  copy  of  H.R.  1510  follow:] 

Summary  of  the  Immigration  Reform  and  Control  Act  of  1983  H.R.  1510 

I.  ILLEGAL  immigration 

A.  Employer  Sanctions 

Makes  it  unlawful  for  any  employer  knowingly  to  hire  for  employment  or  to  re- 
cruit for  a  fee,  after  the  date  of  enactment,  any  alien  not  authorized  to  work  in  the 
United  States. 

Requires  employers  of  four  employees  or  more  to  have  all  prospective  employees 
show  them,  as  a  condition  of  hiring,  either:  (1)  a  U.S.  passport,  or  (2)  a  U.S.  birth 
certificate  or  social  security  card  and  a  driver's  license,  or  a  state  issued  I.D.  card, 
or  an  alien  identification  document. 

Requires  such  employer,  to  attest  in  writing,  under  penalty  of  perjury,  that  he  has 
seen  the  necessary  documentation;  requires  the  employee,  to  attest  in  writing  under 
penalty  of  perjury,  that  he  or  she  is  authorized  to  work  in  the  United  States. 

Any  employer  of  four  or  more  employees  who  does  not  meet  the  requirements  for 
checking  documents,  signing  the  appropriate  form,  and  retaining  the  appropriate 
form  is  liable  to  a  civil  fine  of  $500  per  employee  hired. 

States  that  within  three  years  of  enactment  the  President  shall  make  such 
changes  "as  may  be  necessary"  to  make  the  system  more  secure. 

States  that  the  bill  does  not  authorize  the  creation  of  national  identification  cards. 

Establishes  a  graduated  penalty  structure  for  hiring  unauthorized  aliens — first  of- 
fense: warning;  second  offense:  $1,000  civil  fine  per  unauthorized  alien  hired;  third 
offense:  $2,000  civil  fine  per  unauthorized  alien  hired;  fourth  offense:  $3,000  crimi- 
nal fine  per  unauthorized  alien  hired  or  one  year  in  jail,  or  both.  Also,  Attorney 
General  may  seek  an  injunction  to  stop  pattern  or  practice  violators. 

Requires  an  extensive  outreach  program  to  inform  employers,  employees,  and  the 
general  public  of  this  new  law.  Allows  violations  occurring  during  the  first  six  (6) 
months  after  enactment  to  go  unpublished. 


Gives  violators  a  right  to  a  hearing  before  a  Department  of  Justice  Administrative 
Law  Judge.  (See  page  2.) 

Requires  Civil  Rights  Commission  to  issue  reports  on  possible  discriminatory 
effect  of  this  law. 

Creates  an  affirmative  defense  for  employers  who  have  complied  with  the  attesta- 
tion requirements  in  good  faith. 

Creates  a  Department  of  Labor /Department  of  Justice  task  force  to  review  com- 
plaints of  discrimination. 

Makes  it  a  felony  to  use  fraudulent  documents  in  order  to  obtain  employment. 

B.  Increased  Border  and  Other  Enforcement;  User  Fees 

Creates  criminal  penalty  for  bringing  an  alien  to  the  United  States,  knowing  or  in 
reckless  disregard  of  the  fact,  that  the  alien  had  not  received  prior  official  authori- 
zation to  enter. 

States  the  sense  of  Congress  that  resources  for  border  patrol  and  other  immigra- 
tion enforcement  activities  of  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service  and  other 
agencies  should  be  increased. 

Allows  Attorney  General  to  impose  fees  for  the  use  by  aliens  of  border  and  other 
immigration  facilities  and  services  in  an  amount  commensurate  with  cost. 

C.  Adjudication  Procedures  and  Asylum 

Creates  United  States  Immigration  Board,  an  independent  agency  within  the  De- 
partment of  Justice.  Six  member  Board  is  appointed  by  the  President  with  the 
advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  with  members  serving  six  year  terms.  It  may  meet 
en  banc  or  in  panels  of  three  or  more.  It  hears  all  appeals  from  decisions  made  by 
the  Administrative  Law  Judges. 

Chairman  of  Board  appoints  up  to  seventy  Administrative  Law  Judges  to  hear  all 
exclusion  and  deportation  cases  (including  those  involving  asylum),  challenges  to 
fines,  and  all  other  matters  heard  by  the  present  Board  of  Immigration  Appeals. 
Some  of  the  Administrative  Law  Judges  are  specially  trained  to  hear  asylum  cases. 

Decisions  by  Administrative  Law  Judges  would  be  reversible  by  the  Board  if  not 
supported  by  substantial  evidence. 

Judicial  review  in  exclusion  cases  available  in  U.S.  Circuit  Courts. 

Judicial  review  of  asylum  matters  available  in  Circuit  Court  once  a  final  order  of 
deportation  or  exclusion  has  been  entered. 

Judicial  review  of  non-asylum  deportation  cases  available  in  Circuit  Court  of  Ap- 
peals. 

At  asylum  hearings,  alien  is  entitled  to  an  open  hearing,  representation  by  coun- 
sel, the  right  to  call  witnesses,  present  evidence,  and  confront  witnesses. 

Aliens  who  attempt  to  enter  the  U.S.  without  proper  documents  can  be  excluded 
unless  they  assert  some  reasonable  basis  for  entering  the  United  States  or  claim 
asylum,  in  which  case  they  are  entitled  to  go  before  an  Administrative  Law  Judge 
and  receive  a  full  scale  hearing. 

Requires  speedy  asylum  hearings:  If  alien  is  not  given  asylum  hearing  within  45 
days  of  the  filing  of  the  application,  the  alien,  if  detained,  will  be  released  on  parole. 

Imposes  various  time  limits  in  the  processing  of  asylum  claims. 

D.  Adjustment  of  Status 

Adjustment  of  status  procedure  would  not  be  available  to  aliens  who  have  violat- 
ed the  terms  of  their  nonimmigrant  visa. 

II.  LEGAL  IMMIGRATION 

A.  Labor  Certification 

Labor  certification  can  be  granted  on  the  basis  of  nationwide  job  market  data  or 
on  a  case  by  case  basis.  Certification  must  include  a  finding  that  sufficient  U.S. 
workers  could  not  be  trained  within  a  reasonable  time. 

Allows  certain  aliens  having  labor  certifications  to  remain  in  the  United  States  if 
a  visa  will  likely  be  available  within  two  years. 

B.  G-4's 

Relief  provisions  are  provided  for  certain  children  and  widowed  spouses  of  em- 
ployees of  international  organizations. 

C.  Nonimmigrants 

Special  procedures  established  for  H-2  seasonal  workers  in  agriculture:  the  em- 
ployer must  apply  to  the  Secretary  of  Labor  no  more  than  50  days  in  advance  of 
need,  asking  for  foreign  workers;  employer  then  must  attempt  to  recruit  domestic 


workers;  the  Secretary  of  Labor  must  provide  a  decision  on  the  certification  no  later 
than  20  days  in  advance  of  need;  if  the  Secretary  of  Labor  determines  that  a  certain 
number  of  qualified  U.S.  workers  will  be  available  at  the  time  needed,  but  at  the 
determined  time  those  workers  are  not  qualified  and  available,  an  expedited  proce- 
dure to  determine  need  would  be  available. 

D.  Visa  Waiver 

After  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service  has  implemented  a  system  to 
track  the  entry  and  exit  of  nonimmigrants,  the  State  Department  may  establish  a 
three  year  pilot  nonimmigrant  visa  waiver  program  for  five  countries  which  provide 
or  will  provide  a  similar  benefit  to  the  United  States.  The  visa  refusal  and  visa 
abuse  rates  for  the  nationals  of  such  countries  must  be  minimal,  and  the  visitors 
must  have  nonrefundable,  roundtrip  tickets. 

E.  Foreign  Students 

Foreign  students  who  enter  the  U.S.  after  date  of  enactment  will  not  be  allowed 
to  adjust  status  or  return  to  the  U.S.  until  they  have  resided  in  their  home  coun- 
tries for  two  years,  unless  such  a  student  is  an  immediate  relative  of  a  U.S.  citizen. 
Foreign  students  who  entered  before  date  of  enactment  will  not  be  permitted  to 
adjust  status,  and  must  leave  the  United  States  to  seek  a  visa  if  they  wish  to  return. 
Exceptions  are  allowed,  until  1989,  for  students  with  degrees  in  natural  science,  en- 
gineering, computer  science,  or  mathematics  with  certified  job  offers  in  universities 
or  industry.  Exceptions  also  for  adjustment  to  three  year  nonimmigrant  training 
status  in  industry. 

III.  LEGAUZATION 

Permanent  resident  status  (not  citizenship)  for  aliens  who  have  continuously  re- 
sided in  the  U.S.  since  January  1,  1977  and  who  are  not  excluded.  (See  below.) 

Temporary  legal  status  for  (a)  aliens  who  have  continuously  resided  in  the  U.S. 
since  January  1,  1980,  and  (b)  "Cuban/Haitian  entrants"  who  were  previously  given 
special  legal  status,  and  who  are  not  excludable.  (See  below.) 

Persons  receiving  temporary  status  will  be  able  to  adjust  to  permanent  resident 
status  three  years  from  date  of  enactment.  If  they  have  not  done  so  three  and  one- 
half  years  after  date  of  enactment,  their  temporary  resident  status  expires. 

Federally  funded  public  assistance  (other  than  medical  care,  aid  to  aged,  blind,  or 
disabled,  and  for  serious  injury  or  in  the  interest  of  public  health)  will  not  be  availa- 
ble to  permanent  residents  for  three  years  and  temporary  residents  for  six  years 
(other  than  "Cuban/Haitian  entrants"). 

Persons  will  not  be  eligible  for  legalization  who: 

Have  been  convicted  of  a  felony  or  three  misdemeanors  committed  in  the  United 
States; 

Have  assisted  in  political  persecution; 

Have  been  convicted  of  a  crime  involving  moral  turpitude,  or  two  or  more  offenses 
for  which  sentences  aggregating  five  or  more  years  were  imposed; 

The  government  has  reason  to  believe  seek  to  enter  for  activities  inimical  to  the 
welfare,  safety  or  security  of  the  United  States; 

Are,  or  have  been,  anarchists.  Communists,  or  who  advocate  the  overthrow  of  the 
government; 

Are  Nazis; 

Would  engage  in  subversive  activities; 

Have  been  convicted  of  a  drug  violation,  other  than  simple  possession  of  30  grams 
or  less  of  marijuana; 

Are  nonimmigrant  exchange  aliens  subject  to  a  two  year  foreign  residency  re- 
quirement. 

Authorizes  "such  sums"  for  each  year  through  fiscal  year  1989  for  the  purpose  of 
reimbursing  state  and  local  governments  for  increased  educational  and  public  assist- 
ance costs  resulting  from  the  legalization  program. 

Provides  that  aliens  in  the  United  States  continuously  since  January  1,  1973  may 
adjust  to  permanent  resident  status  if  of  good  moral  character  and  not  ineligible  for 
citizenship. 

rv.  MISCELtANEOUS 

A.  Putative  Fathers 

Recognizes,  for  preference  jietitioning  purposes,  the  relationship  between  a  bio- 
logical father  and  his  illegitimate  child. 


B.  Retirees 

Allows  self-sufficient  aliens  who  entered  United  States  prior  to  1978  in  expecta- 
tion of  obtaining  an  immigrant  visa  as  retirees  to  adjust  to  permanent  resident 

SLdLllS* 


6 


98th  congress 
IST  Session 


H.R.1510 


To  revise  and  reform  the  Immigration  and  Nationality  Act,  and  for  other 

purposes. 


IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES 

Febeuaey  17,  1983 

Mr.  Mazzoli  introduced  the  following  bill;  which  was  referred  to  the  Committee 

on  the  Judiciary 


A  BILL 

To  revise  and  reform  the  Immigration  and  Nationality  Act,  and 

for  other  purposes. 

1  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representa- 

2  tives  of  the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled, 

3  SHOET  title;  references  in  act 

4  Section  1.  (a)  This  Act  may  be  cited  as  the  "Immigra- 

5  tion  Reform  and  Control  Act  of  1983". 

6  (b)  Except  as  otherwise  specifically  provided,  whenever 

7  in  this  Act  an  amendment  or  repeal  is  expressed  in  terms  of 

8  an  amendment  to,  or  repeal  of,  a  section  or  other  provision, 


2 

1  the  reference  shall  be  considered  to  be  made  to  a  section  or 

2  other  provision  of  the  Immigration  and  Nationality  Act. 

TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

Sec.  1.  Short  title;  references  in  Act. 

TITLE  I— CONTROL  OF  ILLEGAL  IMMIGRATION 

Paet  a — Employment 

Sec.  101.  Control  of  unlawful  employment  of  aliens. 
Sec.  102.  Fraud  and  misuse  of  certain  documents. 

Past  B — Enfoecement  and  Fees 

Sec.   111.  Immigration  enforcement  activities. 

Sec.  112.  Unlawful  transportation  of  aliens  to  the  United  States. 

Sec.  113.  Fees. 

Paet  C — Adjudication  Peoceduees  and  AsYLtna 

Sec.  121.  Inspection  and  exclusion. 

Sec.  122.  United  States  Immigration  Board  and  establishment  of  administrative 

law  judge  system. 

Sec.  123.  Judicial  review. 

Sec.  124.  Asylum. 

Sec.  125.  Effective  dates  and  transition. 

Sec.  126.  Technical  and  conforming  changes. 

Paet  D — Adjustment  of  Status 

Sec.  131.  Limitations  on  adjustment  of  nonimmigrants  to  immigrant  status  by  out- 
of-status  aliens. 

TITLE  n— REFORM  OF  LEGAL  IMMIGRATION 

Paet  A — Immigeants 

Sec.  201.  Labor  certification. 
Sec.  202.  G-4  special  immigrants. 
Sec.  203.  Miscellaneous  changes. 

Paet  B — Nontmmigeants 

Sec.  211.  H-2  workers. 

Sec.  212.  Students. 

Sec.  213.  Visa  waiver  for  certain  visitors. 

TITLE  m— LEGALIZATION 

Sec.  301.  Legalization. 

Sec.  302.  Updating  registry  date  to  January  1,  1973. 

Sec.  303.  State  legalization  assistance. 


8 

3 

1  TITLE  I— CONTROL  OF  ILLEGAL  IMMIGRATION 

2  Paet  a — Employment 

3  conteol  of  unlawful  employment  of  aliens 

4  Sec.  101.  (a)(1)  Chapter  8  of  title  11  is  amended  by 

5  inserting  after  section  274  (8  U.S.C.  1324)  the  following  new 

6  section: 

7  "unlawful  EMPLOYMENT  OF  ALIENS 

8  "Sec.  274A.  (a)(1)  It  is  unlawful  for  a  person  or  other 

9  entity  after  the  date  of  the  enactment  of  this  section  to  hire, 

10  or  to  recruit  or  refer  for  a  fee,  for  employment  in  the  United 

1 1  States — 

12  "(A)  an  alien  knowing  the  alien  is  an  unauthor- 

13  ized  alien  (as  defined  in  paragraph  (4))  with  respect  to 

14  such  employment,  or 

15  "(B)  an  individual  without  complying  with  the  re- 

16  quirements  of  subsection  (b). 

17  Subparagraph  (B)  shall  not  apply  to  a  person  or  entity  which 

18  employs  three  or  fewer  employees. 

19  "(2)  It  is  unlawful  for  a  person  or  other  entity,  after 

20  hiring  an  alien  for  employment  subsequent  to  the  date  of  the 

21  enactment  of  this  section  and  in  accordance  with  paragraph 

22  (1),  to  continue  to  employ  the  aUen  in  the  United  States 

23  knowing  the  alien  is  (or  has  become)  an  unauthorized  alien 

24  with  respect  to  such  employment. 


9 

4 

1  "(3)  A  person  or  entity  that  establishes  that  it  has  com- 

2  plied  in  good  faith  with  the  requirements  of  subsection  (b) 

3  with  respect  to  the  hiring,  recruiting,  or  referral  for  employ- 

4  ment  of  an  alien  in  the  United  States  has  estabHshed  an  af- 

5  firmative  defense  that  the  person  or  entity  has  not  violated 

6  paragraph  (1)(A)  with  respect  to  such  hiring,  recruiting,  or 

7  referral. 

8  "(4)  As  used  in  this  section,  the  term  'imauthorized 

9  alien'  means,  with  respect  to  the  employment  of  an  alien  at  a 

10  particular  time,  that  the  alien  is  not  at  that  time  either  (A)  an 

11  alien  lawfully  admitted  for  permanent  residence,  or  (B)  au- 

12  thorized  to  be  so  employed  by  this  Act  or  by  the  Attorney 

13  General. 

14  "(b)  Except  as  provided  in  subsection  (c),  the  require- 

15  ments  referred  to  in  paragraphs  (1)(B)  and  (3)  of  subsection 

16  (a)  are,  in  the  case  of  a  person  or  other  entity  hiring,  recruit- 

17  ing,  or  referring  an  individual  for  emplojTiient  in  the  United 

18  States,  that — 

19  "(1)  the  person  or  entity  must  attest,  under  penal- 

20  ty  of  perjury  and  on  a  form  designated  or  estabUshed 

21  by  the   Attorney  General  by  regulation,   that  it  has 

22  verified  that  the  individual  is  eligible  to  be  employed 

23  (or  recruited  or  referred  for  employment)  in  the  United 

24  States  by  examining  the  individual's — 

25  "(A)  United  States  passport,  or 


\ 


18-556    O— 83 2 


10 


5 

1  "(B)(i)  social  security  account  number  card 

2  or  certificate  of  birth  in  the  United  States  or  es- 

3  tablishing  United  States  nationality  at  birth,  and 

4  "(ii)(I)    alien    documentation,    identification, 

5  and    telecommunication    card,    or    similar    fraud- 

6  resistant  card  issued  by  the  Attorney  General  to 

7  aUens  and  designated  for  use  for  this  purpose, 

8  "(n)    driver's    Ucense    or    similar    document 

9  issued  for  the  purpose  of  identification  by  a  State, 

10  if  it  contains  a  photograph  of  the  individual  or 

11  such  other  personal  identifying  information  relat- 

12  ing  to   the   individual   as   the   Attorney   General 

13  finds,  by  regulation,  sufficient  for  purposes  of  this 

14  section,  or 

15  "(111)  in  the  case  of  individuals  under   16 

16  years  of  age  or  in  a  State  which  does  not  provide 

17  for  issuance  of  an  identification  document  (other 

18  than  a  driver's  Hcense)  referred  to  in  subclause 

19  (II),   documentation  of  personal  identity  of  such 

20  other  type  as  the  Attorney  General  finds,  by  reg- 

21  ulation,  provides  a  reUable  means  of  identification; 

22  "(2)  the  individual  must  attest,  under  penalty  of 

23  perjury  and  on  the  form  designated  or  established  for 

24  purposes  of  paragraph  (1),  that  the  individual  is  a  citi- 

25  zen  or  national  of  the  United  States,  an  alien  lawfully 


11 

6 

1  admitted  for  permanent  residence,  or  an  alien  who  is 

2  authorized  under  this  Act  or  by  the  Attorney  General 

3  to  be  hired,  recruited,  or  referred  for  such  employment; 

4  and 

5  "(3)  ajfter  completion  of  such  form  in  accordance 

6  with  paragraphs  (1)  and  (2),  the  person  or  entity  must 

7  retain  the  form  and  make  it  available  for  inspection  by 

8  officers  of  the  Service  or  of  the  Department  of  Labor 

9  during  a  period  beginning  on  the  date  of  the  hiring,  re- 
10  cruiting,  or  referral  of  the  individual  and  ending— 

J  J  "(A)  in  the  case  of  the  recruiting  or  referral 

12  (without  hiring)  of  an  individual,  three  years  after 

13  the  date  of  such  recruiting  or  referral,  and 

j4  "(B)  in  the  case  of  the  hiring  of  an  individu- 

15  al— 

Ig  "(i)  three  years  after  the  date  of  such 

17  hiring,  or 

jg  "(ii)  one  year  after  the  date  the  individ- 

19  ual's  employment  is  terminated, 

20  whichever  is  later. 

21  A  person  or  entity  has  compUed  with  paragraph  (1)  with  re- 

22  spect  to  examination  of  a  document  if  the  document  reason- 

23  ably  appears  on  its  face  to  be  genuine.  Notwithstanding  any 

24  other  provision  of  law,  the  person  or  entity  may  copy  a  docu- 

25  ment  presented  by  an  mdividual  pursuant  to  this  subsection 


12 

7 

1  and  may  retain  the  copy,  but  only  (except  as  otherwise  per- 

2  mitted  under  law)  for  the  purpose  of  complying  with  the  re- 

3  quirements  of  this  subsection. 

4  "(c)(1)(A)  Within  three  years  after  the  date  of  the  enact- 

5  ment  of  this  section,   the  President  shall  implement  such 

6  changes  in  or  additions  to  the  requirements  of  subsection  (b) 

7  as  conform  to  the  requirements  of  paragraph  (2)  of  this  sub- 

8  section  and  as  may  be  necessary  to  establish  a  secure  system 

9  to  determine  employment  eligibility  in  the  United  States.  In 

10  considering  possible  changes  or  additions,  the  President  shall 

1 1  consider  use  of  a  telephone  verification  system. 

12  "(B)  Nothing  in  this  subsection  shall  be  construed  to 

13  authorize,  directly  or  indirectly,  the  issuance  or  use  of  nation- 

14  al  identification  cards. 

15  "(2)  Such  changes  or  additions  shall  be  designed  in  a 

16  manner  so  that — 

17  "(A)  personal  information  utilized  by  the  system  is 

18  available  only  to  employers,  recruiters,  and  referrers 

19  for  employment  and  to  Government  agencies  and  only 

20  to  the  extent  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  verifying 

21  that  an  individual  is  not  an  unauthorized  alien, 

22  "(B)  if  the  changes  or  additions  provide  a  verifica- 

23  tion  method  to  determine  an  individual's  eligibility  to 

24  be  employed  in  the  United  States — 


13 

8 

1  "(i)  the  verification  may  not  be  withheld  for 

2  any  reason  other  than  that  the  individual  is  an  un- 

3  authorized  alien,  and 

4  "(ii)  the  verification  method  may  not  be  used 

5  for  law  enforcement  purposes  (other  than  for  en- 

6  forcement  of  this  section  or  section  1546  of  title 

7  18,  United  States  Code),  and 

8  "(C)  if  the  system  requires  individuals  to  present 

9  a  card  or  other  document  designed  specifically  for  use 

10  for  this  purpose  at  the  time  of  hiring,  recruitment,  or 

11  referral,  then  such  document  may  not  be  required  (i)  to 

12  be  presented  for  any  purpose  other  than  under  this  sec- 

13  tion  (or  enforcement  of  section  1546  of  title  18,  United 

14  States  Code)  or  (ii)  to  be  carried  on  one's  person. 

15  "(d)(1)(A)  In  the  case  of  a  person  or  entity  which  has 

16  not  previously  been  cited  under  this  subparagraph,  if  the  At- 

17  tomey  General,  based  on  evidence  or  information  he  deems 

18  persuasive,  reasonably  concludes  that  the  person  or  entity 

19  has  violated  paragraph  (1)(A)  or  (2)  of  subsection  (a)  with 

20  respect  to  the  hiring,  or  recniitmg  or  referring  for  a  fee,  for 

21  employment  of  an  alien,  the  Attorney  General  may  serve  a 

22  citation  on  the  person  or  entity  containing  a  notification  that 

23  the  alien's  employment  is  not  authorized  and  a  warning  of 

24  the  penalties  and  injunctive  remedy  set  forth  in  this  subsec- 

25  tion. 


14 

9 

1  "(B)  In  the  case  of  a  person  or  entity  which  has  previ- 

2  ously  been  cited  under  subparagraph  (A),  which  is  determined 

3  to  have  violated  paragraph  (1)(A)  or  (2)  of  subsection  (a),  and 

4  which — 

5  "(i)  has  not  previously  been  subject  to  a  civil  pen- 

6  alty  under  this  subparagraph,  the  person  or  entity  shall 

7  be  subject  to  a  civil  penalty  of  $1,000  for  each  unau- 

8  thorized  alien  with  respect  to  which  the  violation  oc- 

9  curred; 

10  "(ii)  has  previously  been  subject  to  a  civil  penalty 

11  under  this  subparagraph,  the  person  or  entity  shall  be 

12  subject  to  a  civil  penalty  of  $2,000  for  each  unauthor- 

13  ized  alien  with  respect  to  which  the  violation  occurred; 

14  and 

15  "(iii)  has  previously  been  subject  to  a  civil  penalty 

16  under  this  subparagraph  in  more  than  one  instance,  the 

17  person  or  entity  shall  be  fined  not  more  than  $3,000, 

18  imprisoned  not  more  than  one  year,  or  both,  for  each 

19  unauthorized  alien  with  respect  to  which  the  violation 

20  occurred. 

21  "(2)  Whenever  the  Attorney  General  has  reasonable 

22  cause  to  believe  that  a  person  or  entity  is  engaged  in  a  pat- 

23  tern  or  practice  of  employment,  recruitment,  or  referral  in 

24  violation  of  paragraph  (1)(A)  or  (2)  of  subsection  (a),  the  At- 

25  tomey  General  may  bring  a  civil  action  in  the  United  States 


15 


10 

1  district  court  for  the  district  in  which  the  person  or  entity 

2  resides  or  in  which  the  violation  occurred  requesting  such 

3  relief,  including  a  permanent  or  temporary  injunction,  re- 

4  straining  order,  or  other  order  against  the  person  or  entity,  as 

5  the  Attorney  General  deems  necessary. 

6  "(3)(A)  In  the  case  of  a  person  or  entity  which  has  not 

7  previously  heen  cited  under  this  subparagraph,  if  the  Attor- 

8  ney  General,  based  on  evidence  or  mformation  he  deems  per- 

9  suasive,  reasonably  concludes  that  the  person  or  entity  has 

10  violated  subsection  (a)(1)(B)  with  respect  to  the  hirmg,  or  re- 

11  cruiting  or  referring  for  a  fee,  for  employment  of  an  individu- 

12  al,  the  Attorney  General  may  serve  a  citation  on  the  person 

13  or  entity  containing  a  notification  of  the  requu-ements  of  sub- 

14  section  (a)(1)(B)  and  a  warning  of  the  penalty  set  forth  in 

15  subparagraph  (B). 

16  "(B)  A  person  or  entity  which  has  previously  been  cited 

17  under  subparagraph  (A)  and  which  is  determined  to  have  vio- 

18  lated  subsection  (a)(1)(B)  shall  be  subject  to  a  civil  penalty  of 

19  $500  for  each  individual  with  respect  to  which  such  violation 

20  occurred. 

21  "(4)(A)(i)  Before  issuing  a  citation  on,  or  hnposmg  a 

22  civil  penalty  against,  a  person  or  entity  under  this  subsection 

23  for  a  violation  of  subsection  (a),  the  Attorney  General  shall 

24  provide  the  person  or  entity  with  notice  and,  upon  request 

25  made  within  a  reasonable  time  (of  not  less  than  30  days,  as 


16 


11 

1  established  by  the  Attorney  General)  of  the  date  of  the 

2  notice,  a  hearing  respecting  the  violation. 

3  "(ii)  Any  hearing  so  requested  shall  be  conducted  before 

4  an  administrative  law  judge.  The  hearing  shall  be  conducted 

5  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  section  554  of  title  5, 

6  United  States  Code  and  rules  of  the  United  States  Immigra- 

7  tion  Board  estabUshed  under  section  107.  The  hearing  shall 

8  be  held  within  200  miles  of  the  place  where  the  person  or 

9  entity  resides  or  of  the  place  where  the  alleged  violation  oc- 

10  curred.  If  no  hearing  is  so  requested,  the  assessment  shall 

11  constitute  a  final  and  unappealable  order. 

12  "(iii)  A  person  or  entity  (including  the  Attorney  Gener- 

13  al)  adversely  affected  by  a  final  order  respecting  an  assess- 

14  ment  may,  within  60  days  after  the  date  the  final  order  is 

15  issued,  file  a  petition  in  the  Court  of  Appeals  for  the  appro- 

16  priate  circuit  for  review  of  the  order. 

17  "(B)(i)  If  the  person  or  entity  against  whom  a  civil  pen- 

18  alty  is  assessed  fails  to  pay  the  penalty  within  the  time  pre- 

19  scribed  in  such  order,  the  Attorney  General  shall  file  a  suit  to 

20  collect  the  amount  in  the  United  States  district  court  for  the 

21  district  in  which  the  person  or  entity  resides  or  in  which  the 

22  violation  (with  respect  to  which  the  penalty  was  assessed) 

23  occurred. 

24  "(ii)  In  any  suit  described  in  clause  (i)  based  on  an  as- 

25  sessment — 


17 

12 

1  "(I)  made  after  a  hearing  before  an  administrative 

2  law  judge,  the  suit  shall  be  determined  solely  upon  the 

3  administrative  record  upon  which  the  civil  penalty  was 

4  assessed  and  the  administrative  law  judge's  findings  of 

5  fact,  if  supported  by  substantial  evidence  on  the  record 

6  considered  as  a  whole,  shall  be  conclusive,  or 

7  "(II)  for  which  a  timely  request  for  a  hearing  was 

8  not  made,  the  validity  and  appropriateness  of  the  final 

9  order  imposing  the  assessment  shall  not  be  subject  to 

10  review. 

11  "(5)(A)  In  determining  the  level  of  sanction  that  is  ap- 

12  pHcable  under  paragraph  (1)  for  violations  of  paragraph  (1)(A) 

13  or  (2)  of  subsection  (a)  and  that  is  applicable  under  paragraph 

14  (3)  for  violations  of  subsection  (a)(1)(B),  determinations  of 

15  more  than  one  violation  in  the  course  of  a  single  proceeding 

16  or  adjudication  shall  be  counted  as  a  single  determination. 

17  "(B)  In  applying  this  subsection  in  the  case  of  a  person 

18  or  entity  composed  of  distinct,  physically  separate  subdivi- 

19  sions  each  of  which  provides  separately  for  the  hiring,  re- 

20  cruiting,  or  referral  for  employment  without  reference  to  the 

21  practices  of,  or  under  the  control  of,  or  common  control  with, 

22  another  subdivision,  each  such  subdivision  shall  be  considered 

23  a  separate  person  or  entity. 

24  "(e)  In  providing  documentation  or  endorsement  of  au- 

25  thorization  of  aliens  (other  than  ahens  lawfully  admitted  for 


18 

13 

1  permanent  residence)  to  be  employed  in  the  United  States, 

2  the  Attorney  General  shall  provide  that  any  limitations  with 

3  respect  to  the  period  or  t3^e  of  employment  or  employer  shall 

4  be  conspicuously  stated  on  the  documentation  or  endorse- 

5  ment. 

6  "(f)  The  provisions  of  this  section  preempt  any  State  or 

7  local  law  imposing  civil  or  criminal  sanctions  upon  those  who 

8  employ,  or  recruit  or  refer  for  a  fee  for  employment,  unau- 

9  thorized  aUens. 

10  "(g)(1)  The  President  shall  monitor,  and  shall  consult 

11  with  the  Congress  every  six  months  concerning,  the  imple- 

12  mentation  of  this  section  (including  the  effectiveness  of  the 

13  verification  and  record-keeping  system  described  in  subsec- 

14  tion  (b)  and  the  status  of  the  changes  and  additions  described 

15  in  subsection  (c))  and  the  impact  of  this  section  on  the  econo- 

16  my  of  the  United  States  and  on  employment  (including  dis- 

17  crimination  in  employment)  of  citizens   and  aliens  in  the 

18  United  States,  on  the  illegal  entry  of  aliens  into  the  United 

19  States,  and  on  the  failure  of  aliens  who  have  legally  entered 

20  the  United  States  to  remain  in  legal  status.  For  the  purpose 

21  of  conducting  such  monitoring  and  beginning  development  of 

22  the  changes  and  additions  described  in  subsection  (c),  there 

23  are  authorized  to  be  appropriated  $10,000,000  for  fiscal  year 

24  1984. 


19 


14 

1  "(2)(A)  The  Civil  Rights  Commission  shall  monitor  the 

2  implementation  and  enforcement  of  the  provisions  of  this  sec- 

3  tion  and  shall  investigate  allegations  that  the  enforcement  or 

4  implementation  of  this   section  has  been   conducted  in  a 

5  manner  that  results  in  unlawful  discrimination  by  race  or  na- 

6  tionality  against  citizens  of  the  United  States  or  aliens  who 

7  are  not  unauthorized  aliens  (as  defined  in  subsection  (a)(4)). 

8  "(B)  The  Civil  Rights  Commission,  not  later  than  18 

9  months  after  the  month  in  which  this  section  is  enacted,  shall 

10  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  Committees  on  the  Judiciary  of 

11  the  House  of  Representatives  and  of  the  Senate  a  report  de- 

12  scribing  the  implementation  and  enforcement  of  the  provi- 

13  sions  of  this  section  during  the  preceding  period,  for  the  pur- 

14  pose  of  determining  if  a  pattern  of  such  unlawful  discrimina- 

15  tion  has  resulted.  Two  more  such  reports  shall  be  prepared 

16  and  transmitted  36  and  54  months  after  the  month  in  which 

17  this  section  is  enacted. 

18  "(3)  The  Attorney  General,  jointly  with  the  Secretary  of 

19  Labor  and  the  Chauman  of  the  Equal  Employment  Opportu- 

20  nity  Commission,  shall  estabUsh  a  task  force  to  monitor  the 

21  implementation  of  this  section  and  to  review  and  investigate 

22  complaints  registered  of  employment  discrimination  which 

23  may  be  attributable  to  the  operation  of  this  section.". 

24  (2)(A)  No  citation,  civil  or  criminal  penalty,  or  injunc- 

25  tion  may  be  issued  under  section  274A  of  the  Immigration 


20 


15 

1  and  Nationality  Act  for  the  hiring,  or  recruiting  or  referring 

2  for  a  fee,  for  employment  of  individuals  occurring  before  the 

3  first  day  of  the  seventh  month  beginning  after  the  date  of  the 

4  enactment  of  this  Act. 

5  (B)  During  the  one-year  period  beginning  on  the  date  of 

6  the  enactment  of  this  Act,  the  Attorney  General,  in  coopera- 

7  tion  with  the  Secretaries  of  Agriculture,  Commerce,  Health 

8  and  Human  Services,  Labor,  and  the  Treasury  and  the  Ad- 

9  ministrator  of  the  Small  Business  Administration,  shall  dis- 

10  seminate  forms  and  information  to  employers,  employment 

11  agencies,  and  organizations  representing  employees  and  pro- 

12  vide  for  public  education  respecting  the  requirements  of  sec- 

13  tion  2 74 A  of  the  Immigration  and  Nationality  Act.  For  the 

14  purpose  of  carrying  out  this  subparagraph,  there  are  author- 

15  ized  to  be  appropriated  $10,000,000  for  fiscal  year  1984. 

16  (C)  The  Attorney  General  shall,  not  later  than  the  first 

17  day  of  the  seventh  month  beginning  after  the  date  of  the 

18  enactment  of  this  Act,  first  issue,  on  an  interim  or  other 

19  basis,  such  regulations  as  may  be  necessary  in  order  to  imple- 

20  ment  section  274A  of  the  Immigration  and  Nationality  Act. 

21  (3)  The  table  of  contents  is  amended  by  inserting  after 

22  the  item  relating  to  section  274  the  following  new  item: 

"Sec.  274A.  Unlawful  employment  of  aliens.". 

23  (b)(1)  The  Migrant  and  Seasonal  Agricultural  Worker 

24  Protection  Act  (PubUc  Law  97-470)  is  amended — 


21 


16 

1  (A)  by   striking  out   "101(a)(15)(H)(ii)"   in  para- 

2  graphs  (8)(B)  and  (10)(B)  of  section  3  (29  U.S.C.  1802) 

3  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  "101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a)"; 

4  (B)  in  section  103(a)  (29  U.S.C.  1813(a))— 

5  (i)  by  striking  out  "or"  at  the  end  of  para- 

6  graph  (4), 

7  (ii)  by  striking  out  the  period  at  the  end  of 

8  paragraph  (5)  and  inserting  in  heu  thereof  ";  or", 

9  and 

10  (iii)  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new 

11  paragraph: 

12  "(6)  has  been  found  to  have  violated  paragraph 

13  (1)  or  (2)  of  section  274A  of  the  Immigration  and  Na- 

14  tionaUty  Act."; 

15  (C)  by  striking  out  section  106  (29  U.S.C.  1816) 

16  and  the  corresponding  item  in  the  table  of  contents; 

17  and 

18  (D)    by    striking    out    "section    106"    in    section 

19  501(b)  (29  U.S.C.   1856(b))  and  by  inserting  in  lieu 

20  thereof  "paragraph  (1)  or  (2)  of  section  274A  of  the 

21  Lnmigration  and  Nationality  Act". 

22  (2)  The  amendments  made  by  paragraph  (1)  shall  apply 

23  to  the  employment,  recruitment,  referral,  or  utilization  of  the 

24  services  of  an  individual  occurring  on  or  after  the  first  day  of 


22 


17 

1  the  seventh  month  beginning  after  the  date  of  the  enactment 

2  of  this  Act. 

3  FRAUD  AND  MISUSE  OF  CERTAIN  DOCUMENTS 

4  Sec.  102.  (a)  Section  1546  of  title  18,  United  States 

5  Code,  is  amended — 

6  (1)  hy  amending  the  heading  to  read  as  follows: 

7  "§  1546.  Fraud  and  misuse  of  visas,  permits,  and  other 

8  documents"; 

9  (2)  by  striking  out  "or  other  document  required 

10  for  entry  into  the  United  States"  in  the  first  paragraph 

11  and  inserting  in   lieu   thereof  "border  crossing  card, 

12  alien  registration  receipt  card,  or  other  document  pre- 

13  scribed  by  statute  or  regulation  for  entry  into  or  as  evi- 

14  dence  of  authorized  stay  or  employment  in  the  United 

15  States", 

16  (3)  by  striking  out   "or  document"   in   the  first 

17  paragraph  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  "border  cross- 

18  ing  card,  alien  registration  receipt  card,  or  other  docu- 

19  ment  prescribed  by  statute  or  regulation  for  entry  into 

20  or  as  evidence  of  authorized  stay  or  employment  in  the 

21  United  States", 

22  (4)  by  striking  out  "$2,000"  and  inserting  in  lieu 

23  thereof  "$5,000", 

24  (5)  by  inserting  "(a)"  before  "Whoever"  the  first 

25  place  it  appears,  and 


23 


18 

1  (6)  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  sub- 

2  sections: 

3  "(b)  Whoever  knowingly  uses  an  identification  document 

4  (other  than  one  issued  lawfully  for  the  use  of  the  possessor) 

5  or  a  false  identification  document  for  the  purpose  of  satisfying 

6  a  requirement  of  subsection  (b)  or  (c)  of  section  274A  of  the 

7  Immigration  and  Nationality  Act,  shall  be  fined  not  more 

8  than  $5,000  or  imprisoned  not  more  than  two  years,  or  both. 

9  "(c)  This  section  does  not  prohibit  any  lawfully  author- 

10  ized  investigative,  protective,  or  intelligence  activity  of  a  law 

11  enforcement  agency  of  the  United  States,  a  State,  or  a  subdi- 

12  vision  of  a  State,  or  of  an  intelligence  agency  of  the  United 

13  States,  or  any  activity  authorized  under  title  V  of  the  Orga- 

14  nized  Crime  Control  Act  of  1970  (18  U.S.C.  note  prec. 

15  3481).". 

16  (b)  The  item  relating  to  section  1546  in  the  table  of 

17  sections  of  chapter  75  of  such  title  is  amended  to  read  as 

18  follows: 

"1546.  Fraud  and  misuse  of  visas,  permits,  and  other  documents.". 

19  Paet  B — Enfoecement  and  Fees 

20  immigeation  enfoecement  activities 

21  Sec.  111.  (a)  It  is  the  sense  of  Congress  that  an  essen- 

22  tial   element   of  the   program   of  immigration   control   and 

23  reform  estabUshed  by  this  Act  is  an  increase  in  border  patrol 

24  and  other  enforcement  activities  of  the  Immigration  and  Nat- 

25  uralization  Service  and  of  other  appropriate  Federal  agencies 


24 

19 

1  in  order  to  prevent  and  deter  the  illegal  entry  of  aliens  into 

2  the  United  States. 

3  (b)  In  order  to  do  this  in  the  most  effective  and  efficient 

4  manner,  it  is  the  intent  of  Congress  to  provide,  through  the 

5  annual  authorization  of  appropriations  process  for  the  De- 

6  partment  of  Justice  and  for  other  appropriate  Federal  agen- 

7  cies,  for  a  controlled  and  closely  monitored  increase  m  the 

8  level  of  the  border  patrol  and  of  other  appropriate  enforce- 

9  ment  activities  of  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Servdce 

10  and  of  such  other  Federal  agencies  to  achieve  an  effective 

1 1  level  of  control  of  illegal  immigration. 

12  UNLAWFUL  TRANSPORTATION  OF  ALIENS  TO  THE  UNITED 

13  STATES 

14  Sec.  112.  Section  274  (8  U.S.C.  1324)  is  amended— 

15  (1)  by  striking  out  ":  Provided,  however"  and  all 

16  that  follows  up  to  the  period  at  the  end  of  subsection 

17  (a), 

18  (2)  by  redesignating  subsection  (c)  as  subsection 

19  (d),  and 

20  (3)  by  mserting  after  subsection  (b)  the  following 

21  new  subsection: 

22  "(c)  Any  person  who,  knowing  or  in  reckless  disregard 

23  of  the  fact  that  an  aUen  has  not  received  prior  official  authori- 

24  zation  to  come  to,  enter,  or  reside  in  the  United  States, 

25  brings  to  or  attempts  to  bring  to  the  United  States  such  alien 


25 

20 

1  by  himself  or  through  another  in  any  manner  whatsoever, 

2  regardless  of  whether  or  not  fraudulent,  evasive,  or  surrepti- 

3  tious  means  are  used  and  regardless  of  any  official  action 

4  which  may  later  be  taken  with  respect  to  such  alien,  shall,  for 

5  each  transaction  constituting  a  violation  of  this  subsection 

6  (regardless  of  the  number  of  aliens  involved) — 

7  "(1)  be  fined  not  more  than  $5,000  or  imprisoned 

8  not  more  than  one  year,  or  both,  or 

9  "(2)  m  the  case  of — 

10  "(A)  a  second  or  subsequent  offense  under 

11  this  subsection, 

12  "(B)  an  offense  done  for  the  purpose  of  com- 

13  mercial  advantage  or  private  gain,  or 

1^  "(C)  an  offense  in  which  the  alien  is  not 

1^  upon  arrival  immediately  brought  and  presented 

1^  to  an  appropriate  inmiigration  officer  at  a  desig- 

17  nated  port  of  entry, 

18  be  fined  not  more   than   $10,000  or  imprisoned  not 

19  more  than  five  years,  or  both.". 

20  FEES 

21  Sec.  113.  (a)  Section  281  (8  U.S.C.  1351)  is  amend- 

22  ed— 

23  (1)  by  amending  the  heading  to  read  as  follows: 

24  "nonimmigrant  visa  fees  and  alien  usee  fees"; 

25  (2)  by  inserting  "(a)"  after  "Sec.  281.";  and 


18-556    0-83 3 


26 

21 

1  (3)  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  sub- 

2  section: 

3  "(b)  The  Attorney  General,  in  consultation  with  the 

4  Secretary  of  State,  may  impose  fees  on  aUens  with  respect  to 

5  their  use  of  border  facilities  or  services  of  the  Service  in  such 

6  amounts  as  may  reasonably  reflect  the  portion  of  costs  of 

7  maintenance  and  operation  of  such  facilities  and  provision  of 

8  such  services  attributable  to  aliens'  use  of  such  facilities  and 

9  services.". 

10  (b)  The  item  in  the  table  of  contents  relating  to  section 

11  281  is  amended  to  read  as  follows: 

"Sec.  281.  Nonimmigrant  visa  fees  and  alien  user  fees.". 

12  Paet  C — Adjudication  Peoceduees  and  Asylum 

13  inspection  and  exclusion 

14  Sec.  121.  Subsection  (b)  of  section  235  (8  U.S.C.  1225) 

15  is  amended  to  read  as  follows: 

16  "(b)(1)(A)   An   inmiigration   officer   shall   inspect   each 

17  alien  who  is  seeking  entry  to  the  United  States. 

18  "(B)(i)  If  the  examining  immigration  officer  determines 

19  that  the  alien  seeking  entry — 

20  "(I)  does  not  present  the  documentation  required 

21  (if  any)  to  obtain  entry  to  the  United  States, 

22  "(n)  does  not  have  any  reasonable  basis  for  legal 

23  entry  into  the  United  States,  and 

24  "(m)  does  not  indicate  an  intention  to  apply  for 

25  asylum  under  section  208, 


27 


22 

1  subject  to  clause  (ii),  the  alien  shall  be  excluded  from  entry 

2  into  the  United  States  without  a  hearing. 

3  "(ii)  Before  excluding  an  alien  without  a  hearing  under 

4  clause  (i),  the  examining  immigration  officer  shall  inform  the 

5  ahen  of  his  right  to  have  an  administrative  law  judge  redeter- 

6  mine  the  conditions  described  in  clause  (i).  If  the  alien  re- 

7  quests    such   a   redetermination   by   an   administrative   law 

8  judge,  the  alien  shall  not  be  so  excluded  without  a  hearing 

9  until  and  unless  the  administrative  law  judge  (after  a  nonad- 

10  versarial,  summary  proceeding  in  which  the  alien  may  appear 

11  personally)  redetermines  that  the  ahen  meets  the  conditions 

12  of  subclauses  (I)  through  (III)  of  clause  (i). 

13  "(C)  If  the  examining  immigration  officer  determines 

14  that  an  ahen  seeking  entry,  other  than  an  alien  crewman  and 

15  except  as  otherwise  provided  in  subparagraph  (B),  subsection 

16  (c),  or  section  273(d),  is  otherwise  not  clearly  and  beyond  a 

17  doubt  entitled  to  land,  the  alien  shall  be  detained  for  a  hear- 

18  ing  before  an  administrative  law  judge  on  exclusion  of  the 

19  ahen. 

20  "(2)  The  decision  of  the  examining  immigration  officer, 

21  if  favorable  to  the  admission  of  any  alien,  shall  be  subject  to 

22  challenge  by  any  other  immigration  officer  and  such  chal- 

23  lenge  shall  operate  to  take  the  alien,  whose  privilege  to  land 

24  is  so  challenged,  before  an  administrative  law  judge  for  a 

25  hearing  on  exclusion  of  the  alien. 


28 

23 

1  "(3)  The  Attorney  General  shall  establish,  after  eonsul- 

2  tation  with  the  Judiciary  Committees  of  the  Congress,  proce- 

3  dures  which  assure  that  aliens  are  not  excluded  under  para- 

4  graph  (1)(B)  without  an  inquiry  into  their  reasons  for  seeking 

5  entry  into  the  United  States. 

6  "(4)  In  the  case  of  an  alien  who  would  be  excluded  from 

7  entry  under  paragraph  (1)(B)  but  indicating  an  intention  to 

8  apply  for  asylum,  the  exclusion  hearing  with  respect  to  such 

9  entry  shall  be  limited  to  the  issues  raised  in  connection  with 

10  the  alien's  application  for  asylum.". 

11  UNITED    STATES    IMMIGEATION    BOAED    AND    ESTABLISH- 

12  MENT  OF  ADMINISTRATIVE  LAW  JUDGE  SYSTEM 

13  Sec.  122.  (a)  Title  I  is  amended  by  adding  at  the  end 

14  the  following  new  section: 

15  "united  states  IMMIGEATION  BOAED;  USE  OF 

16  ADMINISTEATIVE  LAW  JUDGES 

17  "Sec.  107.  (a)(1)  There  is  established,  as  an  independ- 

18  ent  agency  in  the  Department  of  Justice,  a  United  States 

19  Immigration  Board  (hereinafter  in  this  section  referred  to  as 

20  the  'Board')  composed  of  a  Chairman  and  five  other  members 

21  appointed  by  the  President  by  and  with  the  advice  and  con- 

22  sent  of  the  Senate. 

23  "(2)  The  term  of  office  of  the  Chairman  and  all  other 

24  members  of  the  Board  shall  be  six  years  except  that — 


29 

24 

1  "(A)  of  the  members  first  appointed  under  this 

2  subsection,  two  shall  be  appointed  for  a  term  of  two 

3  years,  two  shall  be  appointed  for  a  term  of  four  years, 

4  and  two  shall  be  appointed  for  a  term  of  six  years, 

5  "(B)  a  member  appomted  to  fill  a  vacancy  occur- 

6  ring  before  the  expiration  of  the  term  for  which  his 
i  predecessor  was  appointed  shall  be  appointed  only  for 

8  the  remainder  of  such  term,  and 

9  "(C)  a  member  may  serve  after  the  expiration  of 

10  his  term  until  reappointed  or  his  successor  has  taken 

11  office. 

12  "(3)  A  member  of  the  Board  may  be  removed  by  the 

13  President  only  for  neglect  of  duty  or  malfeasance  in  office. 

14  "(4)  Members  of  the  Board  (other  than  the  Chairman) 

15  are  entitled,  subject  to  amounts  provided  in  advance  in  ap- 

16  propriation  Acts,  to  receive  compensation  at  the  rate  now  or 

17  hereafter  provided  for  grade  GS-17  of  the  General  Schedule, 

18  under  section  5332  of  title  5,  United  States  Code.  The  Chair- 

19  man  is  entitled,  subject  to  amounts  provided  in  advance  in 

20  appropriation  Acts,  to  receive  compensation  at  the  rate  now 

21  or  hereafter  provided  for  grade   GS-18   of  such   General 

22  Schedule. 

23  "(5)  The  Chairman  shall  be  responsible  on  behalf  of  the 

24  Board  for  the  administrative  operations  of  the  Board.  The 


30 


25 

1  Board  shall  establish  rules  of  practice  and  procedure  for  itself 

2  and  for  the  administrative  law  judges. 

3  "(b)(1)  The  Board  shall  hear  and  determine  appeals 

4  from — 

5  "(A)  final  decisions  of  administrative  law  judges 

6  under  this  Act,  other  than  a  redetermination  excluding 

7  an  aUen  under  section  235(b)(1)(B)  or  a  determination 

8  granting    voluntary    departure    under    section    244(e) 

9  within  a  period  of  at  least  30  days  if  the  sole  ground  of 

10  appeal  is  that  a  greater  period  of  departure  time  should 

11  have  been  fixed; 

12  "(B)  decisions  on  apphcations  for  the  exercise  of 

13  the  discretionary  authority  contained  in  section  212(c) 

14  or  section  212(d)(3)(B); 

15  "(C)  decisions  involving  the  imposition  of  adminis- 

16  trative  fines  and  penalties  under  title  11  of  this  Act,  in- 

17  eluding  mitigation  thereof; 

18  "(D)(i)  decisions  on  petitions  filed  in  accordance 

19  with  section  204,  other  than  petitions  to  accord  prefer- 

20  ence  status  under  paragraph  (3)  or  (6)  of  section  203(a) 

21  or  petitions  on  behalf  of  a  child  described  in  section 

22  101(b)(1)(F),  and 

23  "(ii)  decisions  on  requests  for  revalidation  and  de- 

24  cisions  revoking  approval  of  such  petitions  under  sec- 

25  tion  205;  and 


31 

26 

1  "(E)  determinations  relating  to  bond,  parole,  or 

2  detention  of  an  alien  under  sections  242(a)  and  242(c). 

3  "(2)  Three  members  of  the  Board  constitute  a  quorum  of 

4  the  Board,  except  that  the  Chairman  (or  any  member  of  the 

5  Board  designated  by  the  Chairman)  is  empowered  to  decide 

6  nondispositive  motions. 

7  "(3)  The  Board  shall  act  in  panels  of  three  or  more 

8  members  or  en  banc  (as  designated  by  the  Chairman  in  ac- 

9  cordance  with  the  rules  of  the  Board).  A  final  decision  of  such 

10  a  panel  shall  be  considered  to  be  a  final  decision  of  the  Board. 

11  "(4)(A)  Appeals  to  the  Board  from  final  orders  of  depor- 

12  tation  or  exclusion  (includuig  an  order  respectmg  asylum  con- 

13  tained  in  such  an  order)  shall  be  filed  not  later  than  20  days 

14  after  the  date  of  the  final  order. 

15  "(B)  The  Board  shall  review  the  decision  of  an  adminis- 

16  trative  law  judge  based  solely  upon  the  administrative  record 

17  upon  which  the  decision  is  made  and  the  fmdings  of  fact  in 

18  the  judge's  order,  if  supported  by  reasonable,  substantial,  and 

19  probative  evidence  on  the  record  considered  as  a  whole,  shall 

20  be  conclusive. 

21  "(5)  A  final  decision  of  the  Board  shall  be  bmding  on  all 

22  administrative  law  judges,  unmigration  officers,  and  consular 

23  officers  under  this  Act  unless  and  until  otherwise  modified  or 

24  reversed  by  a  court  of  the  United  States. 


32 


27 

1  "(6)  In  a  case  in  which  the  Board  is  considering  an 

2  appeal  of  a  decision  of  an  administrative  law  judge  respecting 

3  an  application  for  asylum,  the  Board  shall  render  its  decision 

4  on  the  appeal  not  later  than  60  days  after  the  date  the  appeal 

5  is  filed. 

6  "(c)(1)  The  Chairman,  in  accordance  with  sections  3105 

7  and  5108  and  other  provisions  of  title  5,  United  States  Code, 

8  relating  to  administrative  law  judges  in  the  competitive  serv- 

9  ice,  shall — 

10  "(A)   appoint   administrative   law  judges,    except 

11  that  no  more  than  70  such  judges  may  be  appointed 

12  and  hold  office  under  this  section  at  any  time,  and 

13  "(B)  designate  one  such  judge  to  serve  as  chief 

14  administrative  law  judge. 

15  "(2)  In  accordance  with  rules  established  by  the  Board, 

16  the  chief  administrative  law  judge — 

17  "(A)  shall  have  responsibility  for  the  administra- 

18  tive  activities  affecting  administrative  law  judges,  and 

19  "(B)  may  designate  any  administrative  law  judge 

20  in  active   service   to  hear  and  decide   any  cases   de- 

21  scribed  in  paragraph  (3). 

22  "(3)  Administrative  law  judges  shall  hear  and  decide — 

23  "(A)    exclusion    cases    under    sections    236    and 

24  360(c), 

\ 


33 


28 

1  "(B)    deportation   and   suspension   of   deportation 

2  cases  under  sections  242,  243,  and  244, 

3  "(C)  rescission  of  adjustment  of  status  cases  under 

4  sections  245A(b)(4)  and  246, 

5  "(D)  with  respect  to  judges  designated  to  hear 

6  such  cases,  appHcations  for  asylum  under  section  208, 

7  "(E)  the  assessment  of  civil  penalties  under  sec- 

8  tion  2 74 A,  and 

9  "(F)  such  other  cases  arising  under  this  Act  as 

10  the  Attorney  General  may  provide  by  regulation. 

11  Administrative  law  judges  may  also,  without  a  formal  hear- 

12  ing,       make       redeterminations       pursuant       to       section 

13  235(b)(l)(B)(ii). 

14  "(4)  In  considering  and  deciding  cases  coming  before 

15  them,  administrative  law  judges  may  administer  oaths,  shall 

16  record  and  receive  evidence  and  render  findings  of  fact  and 

17  conclusions  of  law,  shall  determine  all  applications  for  discre- 

18  tionary  relief  which  may  properly  be  raised  in  the  proceed- 

19  ings,  and  shall  exercise  such  discretion  conferred  upon  the 

20  Attorney  General  by  law  as  the  Attorney  General  may  speci- 

21  fy  for  the  just  and  equitable  disposition  of  cases  commg 

22  before  such  judges.". 

23  (b)  The  table  of  contents  is  amended  by  inserting  imme- 

24  diately  after  the  item  relating  to  section  106  the  following 

25  new  item: 

"Sec.  107.  United  States  Inunigration  Board;  use  of  administrative  law  judges.". 


34 


29 

1  JUDICIAL  REVIEW 

2  Sec.  123.  (a)  Subsection  (a)  of  section  106  (8  U.S.C. 

3  1 105a)  is  amended — 

4  (1)   by   striking   out    "and   exclusion"    in   the 

5  heading  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  ",  exclusion, 

6  and  asylum"; 

7  (2)  in  the  matter  before  paragraph  (1),  by  striking 

8  out  "The  procedure"  and  all  that  follows  through  "any 

9  prior  Act"  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  the  following: 

10  "Notwithstanding  section  279  of  this  Act,  section  1331 

11  of  title  28,  United  States  Code,  or  any  other  provision 

12  of  law,  the  procedures  prescribed  by  and  all  the  provi- 

13  sions  of  chapter  158  of  title  28,  United  States  Code, 

14  shall  apply  to,  and  shall  be  the  sole  and  exclusive  pro- 

15  cedure  for,  the  judicial  review  of  all  final  orders  of  ex- 

16  elusion    or    deportation    (including    determinations    re- 

17  specting  asylum  encompassed  within  such  orders  and 

18  regardless  of  whether  or  not  the  alien  is  in  custody  and 

19  not  including  exclusions  effected  without  a  hearing  pur- 

20  suant    to    section    235(b)(1)(B))    made    against    aliens 

21  within  (or  seeking  entry  into)  the  United  States"; 

22  (3)  in  paragraph  (1),  by  striking  out  "not  later 

23  than  six  months"  and  all  that  follows  through  "which- 

24  ever  is  the  later"  and  inserting  in  Keu  thereof  "by  the 


35 


30 

1  alien  involved  or  the  Service  not  later  than  30  days 

2  from  the  date  of  the  final  order"; 

3  (4)  by  inserting  ",  in  the  case  of  review  sought  by 

4  an  individual  petitioner,"   in  paragraph  (2)  after   "in 

5  whole  or  in  part,  or"; 

6  (5)  by  inserting  "in  the  case  of  review  sought  by 

7  an  individual  petitioner,"  in  paragraph  (3)  after  "(3)"; 

8  (6)  by  inserting  "exclusion  or"  before  "deporta- 

9  tion"  in  paragraphs  (3)  and  (4); 

10  (7)  by  striking  out  "Attorney  General's  findings  of 

11  fact"  in  paragraphs  (4)  and  (6)  and  inserting  in  lieu 

12  thereof  "findings  of  fact  in  the  order"; 

13  (8)  by  striking  out  "(4)  except  as  provided  in"  in 

14  paragraph   (4)    and   inserting   in   lieu   thereof   "(4)(A) 

15  except  as  provided  in  subparagraph  (B)  and  in"; 

16  (9)  by  adding  at  the  end  of  paragraph  (4)  the  fol- 

17  lowing  new  subparagraph: 

18  "(B)  to  the  extent  that  an  order  relates  to  a  de- 

19  termination  on  an  application  for  asylum,   the   court 

20  shall  only  have  jurisdiction  to  review  (i)  whether  the 

21  jurisdiction    of   the    administrative    law  judge    or    the 

22  United  States  Immigration  Board  was  properly  exer- 

23  cised,  (ii)  whether  the  asylum  determination  was  made 

24  in  accordance  with  applicable  laws  and  regulations,  (iii) 

25  the  constitutionality  of  the  laws  and  regulations  pursu- 


36 

31 

1  ant  to  which  the  determination  was  made,   and  (iv) 

2  whether  the  decision  was  arbitrary  or  capricious;"; 

3  (10)  in  paragraph  (7) — 

4  (A)  by  inserting  "or  exclusion"  after  "depor- 

5  tation"  each  place  it  appears, 

6  (B)  by  striking  out  "subsection  (c)  of  section 

7  242   of  this   Act"   and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof 

8  "section  235(b)  or  242(c)", 

9  (C)  by  striking  out  "a  deportation  order;" 
10  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  "an  exclusion  or  de- 
ll portation  order;",  and 

12  (D)  by  inserting  "and"  at  the  end  thereof; 

13  (11)  by  striking  out  ";  and"  at  the  end  of  para- 

14  graph  (8)  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  a  period;  and 

15  (12)  by  striking  out  paragraph  (9). 

16  (b)  Subsection  (b)  of  such  section  is  amended  to  read  as 

17  follows: 

18  "(b)(1)  Nothing  in  the  provisions  of  this  section  shall  be 

19  construed  as  limiting  the  right  of  habeas  corpus  under  chap- 

20  ter  153  of  title  28,  United  States  Code.  Petitions  for  habeas 

21  corpus  based  upon  custody  effected  pursuant  to  this  Act  may 

22  be  brought  individually  or  on  a  multiple  party  basis  as  the 

23  interests  of  judicial  efficiency  and  justice  may  require. 


37 


32 

1  "(2)  No  court  shall  have  jurisdiction  to  entertain  a  peti- 

2  tion  relating  to  a  detemimation  concerning  asylum  under  sec- 

3  tion  208  except  in  a  petition  for  review  under  subsection  (a). 

4  "(3)  Notwithstanding  any  other  provision  of  law,  no 

5  court  of  the  United  States  shall  have  jurisdiction  to  review 

6  determinations  of  administrative  law  judges  or  of  the  United 

7  States  Immigration  Board  respecting  the  reopening  or  recon- 

8  sideration  of  exclusion  or  deportation  proceedings  or  asylum 

9  determinations  outside  of  such  proceedings,  the  reopening  of 

10  an  application  for  asylum  because  of  changed  circumstances, 

11  the  Attorney  General's  denial  of  a  stay  of  execution  of  an 

12  exclusion  or  deportation  order,  or  a  redetermination  to  ex- 

13  elude  an  alien  from  entering  the  United  States  under  section 

14  235(b)(1)(B).". 

15  (c)  Subsection  (c)  of  such  section  is  amended  by  striking 

16  out  "deportation  or  of  exclusion"  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof 

17  "an  administrative  law  judge". 

18  (d)  Section  279  (8  U.S.C.  1329)  is  amended  by  striking 

19  out  "The  district  courts"  in  the  first  sentence  and  inserting  in 

20  Ueu  thereof  "Except  as  otherwise  provided  under  section 

21  106,  the  district  courts". 

22  (e)  The  item  in  the  table  of  contents  relating  to  section 

23  106  is  amended  to  read  as  follows: 

"Sec.  106.  Judicial  review  of  orders  of  deportation,  exclusion,  and  asylum.". 

24  (f)  In  the  case  of  a  final  order  of  deportation  or  exclusion 

25  entered  before  the  date  of  the  enactment  of  this  Act,  a  peti- 


8 


33 

1  tion  for  review  with  respect  to  that  order  may  in  no  case  be 

2  filed  under  section  106(a)(1)  of  the  Immigration  and  Nation- 

3  ality  Act  later  than  the  earlier  of  (1)  30  days  after  the  date  of 

4  the  enactment  of  this  Act,  or  (2)  the  date  (if  any)  such  peti- 

5  tion  was  required  to  be  filed  under  the  law  in  existence  before 

6  the  date  of  the  enactment  of  this  Act. 

7  ASYLUM 

8  Sec.  124.  (a)(1)  Subsection  (a)  of  section  208  (8  U.S.C. 

9  1158)  is  amended  to  read  as  follows: 

10  "(a)(1)(A)  Except  as  provided  in  subparagraph  (B),  any 

11  alien  physically  present  in  the  United  States  or  at  a  land 

12  border  or  port  of  entry  may  apply  for  asylum  in  accordance 

13  with  this  section. 

14  "(B)(i)  In  the  case  of  an  alien  against  whom  exclusion  or 

15  deportation  proceedings  have  been  instituted,  the  alien's  ap- 

16  plication  for  asylum  may  not  be  considered  unless — 

17  "(I)  not  later  than  14  days  after  the  date  of  the 

18  service  of  the  notice  instituting  such  proceedings,  the 

19  aUen  has  filed  notice  of  intention  to  file  an  appUcation 

20  for  asylum  and,  not  later  than  30  days  after  the  date  of 

21  filing  such  notice  of  intention,  the  alien  has  actually 

22  filed  the  application  for  asylum, 

23  "(II)  the  alien  can  make  a  clear  showing,  to  the 

24  satisfaction  of  the  administrative  law  judge  conducting 

25  the  proceeding,  that  changed  circumstances  after  the 


39 


34 

1  date  of  the  notice  instituting  the  proceeding  have  re- 

2  suited  in  a  change  in  the  basis  for  the  alien's  claim  for 

3  asylum,  or 

4  "(TTT)   the   administrative   law  judge   determines, 

5  solely  in  his  discretion,  that  the  interests  of  justice  re- 

6  quire  the  consideration  of  the  application. 

7  "(ii)  An  alien  who  has  previously  appHed  for  asylum  and 

8  had  such  application  denied  may  not  again  apply  for  asylum 

9  unless  the  alien  can  make  a  clear  showing  that  changed  cir- 

10  cumstances  after  the  date  of  the  denial  of  the  previous  appli- 

11  cation  have  resulted  in  a  change  in  the  basis  for  the  ahen's 

12  claim  for  asylum. 

13  "(2)  Applications  for  asylum  shall  be  considered  before 

14  administrative  law  judges  who  are  specially  designated  by 

15  the  United  States  Immigration  Board  as  having  special  train- 

16  ing  in  international  relations  and  mternational  law.  An  indi- 

17  vidual  who  has  served  as  a  special  inquiry  officer  under  this 

18  title  before  the  date  of  the  enactment  of  the  Immigration 

19  Reform  and  Control  Act  of  1983  may  not  be  designated  to 

20  hear  appHcations  under  this  section,  unless  the  individual  has 

21  received  such  special  training  after  the  date  of  the  enactment 

22  of  this  Act. 

23  "(3)(A)(i)  Upon  the  filing  of  an  application  for  asylum, 

24  an  admmistrative  law  judge,  at  the  earHest  practicable  time 

25  and  after  consultation  with  the  attorney  for  the  Government 


40 

35 

1  and  the  applicant,  shall  set  the  application  for  hearing  on  a 

2  day  certain  or  list  it  for  trial  on  a  weekly  or  other  short-term 

3  hearing  calendar,  so  as  to  assure  a  speedy  hearing. 

4  "(ii)  Unless  the  applicant  consents  in  writing  to  the  con- 

5  trary,  the  hearing  on  the  asylum  application  shall  commence 

6  not  later  than  45  days  after  the  date  the  application  has  been 

7  filed.  The  holding  of  an  asylum  hearing  shall  not  delay  the 

8  holding  of  any  exclusion  or  deportation  proceeding. 

9  "(iii)  In  the  case  of  an  alien  who  has  filed  an  application 

10  for  asylum  and  who  has  been  continuously  detained  pursuant 

11  to  section  235  or  242  since  the  date  the  application  was  filed, 

12  if  a  hearing  on  the  application  is  not  held  on  a  timely  basis 

13  under  clause  (ii)  or  a  decision  on  the  application  rendered  on 

14  a  timely  basis  under  subparagraph  (D),  and  if  actions  or  inac- 

15  tion  by  the  applicant  have  not  resulted  in  unreasonable  delay 

16  in  the  proceedings,  the  Attorney  General  shall  provide  for  the 

17  release  of  the  alien  on  parole  subject  to  such  reasonable  con- 

18  ditions  as  the  Attorney  General  may  establish  to  assure  the 

19  presence  of  the  alien  at  any  appropriate  proceedings. 

20  "(B)(i)  A  hearing  on  the  asylum  application  shall  be 

21  open  to  the  public,  unless  the  applicant  requests  that  it  be 

22  closed  to  the  public. 

23  "(ii)  At  the  time  of  filing  of  notice  of  intention  to  apply 

24  for  asylum,  the  alien  shall  be  advised  of  the  privilege  of  being 


41 


36 

1  represented  by  counsel  (in  accordance  with  section  292)  and 

2  of  the  availability  of  legal  services. 

3  "(iii)  The  applicant  is  entitled  to  have  the  asylum  hear- 

4  ing  closed  to  the  pubUc,  to  present  evidence  and  witnesses  in 

5  his  own  behalf,  to  examine  and  object  to  evidence  against 

6  him,  and  to  cross-examine  witnesses  presented  by  the  Gov- 

7  ermnent. 

8  "(C)  A  complete  record  of  the  proceedings  and  of  all 

9  testimony  and  evidence  produced  at  the  hearing  shall  be 

10  kept.  The  hearing  shall  be  recorded  verbatim.  The  Attorney 

11  General,  and  the  United  States  Immigration  Board,  shall 

12  provide  that  a  transcript  of  a  hearing  held  under  this  section 

13  is  made  available  not  later  than  10  days  after  the  date  of 

14  completion  of  the  hearing. 

15  "(D)  The  administrative  law  judge  shall  render  a  deter- 

16  mination  on  the  application  not  later  than  30  days  after  the 

17  date  of  completion  of  the  hearing.  The  determination  of  the 

18  administrative  law  judge  shall  be  based  only  on  the  evidence 

19  produced  at  the  hearing. 

20  "(E)  The  Attorney  General  shall  allocate  sufficient  re- 

21  sources  so  as  to  assure  that  applications  for  asylum  are  heard 

22  and  determined  on  a  timely  basis  under  this  paragraph. 

23  "(4)  An  alien  may  be  granted  asylum  only  if  the  admin- 

24  istrative  law  judge  determines  that  the  alien  (A)  is  a  refugee 

25  within  the  meaning  of  section  101(a)(42)(A),  and  (B)  does  not 


18-556    O— 83- 


42 


37 

1  meet  a  condition  described  in  one  of  the  subparagraphs  of 

2  section  243(h)(2). 

3  "(5)  The  burden  of  proof  shall  be  upon  the  alien  apply- 

4  ing  for  asylum  to  establish  the  alien's  eligibility  for  asylum. 

5  "(6)  After  making  a  determination  on  an  appUcation  for 

6  asylum  under  this  section,  an  administrative  law  judge  may 

7  not  reopen  the  proceeding  at  the  request  of  the  applicant 

8  except  upon  a  clear  showing  that,  since  the  date  of  such  de- 

9  termination,    changed    circumstances    have    resulted    in    a 

10  change  in  the  basis  for  the  aHen's  claim  for  asylum.". 

11  (2)  Subsection  (b)  of  such  section  is  amended  by  insert- 

12  mg  "(1)"  after  "determines  that  the  alien"  and  by  inserting 

13  before  the  period  at  the  end  the  following:  ",  or  (2)  meets  a 

14  condition  described  in  one  of  the  subparagraphs  of  section 

15  243(h)(2)". 

16  (3)  Such  section  is  further  amended  by  adding  at  the  end 

17  the  following  new  subsection: 

18  "(d)  The  procedures  set  forth  in  this  section  shall  be  the 

19  sole  and  exclusive  procedure  for  determining  asylum.". 

20  (b)  Section  243(h)  (8  U.S.C.   1253(h))  is  amended  by 

21  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  paragraph: 

22  "(3)  An  application  for  relief  under  this  subsection  shall 

23  be  considered  to  be  an  application  for  asylum  under  section 

24  208  and  shall  be  considered  in  accordance  with  the  proce- 

25  dures  set  forth  in  that  section.". 


43 


38 

1  (c)  Section  222(f)  (8  U.S.C.  1202(f))  is  amended  by  in- 

2  serting  "(1)"  after  "(f)"  and  by  adding  at  the  end  the  foUow- 

3  ing  new  paragraph: 

4  "(2)  The  records  or  any  document  of  the  Department  of 

5  Justice,  the  Department  of  State,  or  any  other  Government 

6  agency,  or  foreign  government,  pertaining  to  the  issuance  or 

7  denial  of  any  application  for  asylum,  refugee  status,  withhold- 

8  mg  of  deportation  under  sections  207,  208,  and  243(h)  of  this 

9  Act,  or  any  other  application  arising  under  a  claim  of  perse- 

10  cution  on  account  of  race,  religion,  political  opinion,  national- 

11  ity,  or  membership  in  a  particular  social  group,  shall  be  confi- 

12  dential  and  exempt  from  disclosure  and  shall  be  used  only  for 

13  the  formulation,  amendment,  administration,  or  enforcement 

14  of  the  immigration,  nationaUty,  and  other  laws  of  the  United 

15  States.  In  the  discretion  of  the  Attorney  General  or  the  Sec- 

16  retary  of  State,  as  the  case  may  be,  certified  copies  of  such 

17  records  or  document  may  be  made  available  to  a  court  which 

18  certifies  that  the  information  contained  in  such  records  or 

19  document  is  needed  by  the  court  in  the  interests  of  the  ends 

20  of  justice  in  a  case  pending  before  the  court.". 

21  EFFECTIVE  DATES  AND  TRANSITION 

22  Sec.  125.  (a)(1)  Except  as  otherwise  provided  in  this 

23  section,  the  amendments  made  by  this  part  take  effect  on  the 

24  date  of  the  enactment  of  this  Act. 


44 


39 

1  (2)(A)  Except  as  provided  in   subparagraph  (B),   the 

2  amendments  made  by  this  part  (other  than  those  made  by 

3  sections    121,    123(a)(2),    123(a)(3),    123(a)(6),    123(a)(10), 

4  123(a)(12),  123(b),  123(d),  and  124(b))  shall  not  apply  to— 

5  (i)  any  exclusion  or  deportation  proceeding  (or  ad- 

6  ministrative  or  judicial  review  thereof)  which  was  initi- 

7  ated   before    the    hearing   transition    date    (designated 

V, 

8  under  subsection  (c)(1)(A)),  or 

9  (ii)  to  any  application  for  asylum  filed  before  the 

10  asylum    transition   date    (designated   under    subsection 

11  (c)(1)(B)). 

12  In  the  case  of  such  proceedings  and  such  applications  initiat- 

13  ed  before  such  dates  which  continue  after  such  dates,  the 

14  United  States  Immigration  Board  shall  provide  that  adminis- 

15  trative  law  judges  may  assume  and  perform  such  functions  of 

16  special  inquiry  officers  as  may  be  appropriate  and  consistent 

17  with  their  duties  as  administrative  law  judges. 

18  (B)  Paragraphs  (1)(B),  (3)(B)(ii),  (3)(B)(iii),  (4),  and  (6)  of 

19  section  208(a)  and  section  208(b)  of  the  Immigration  and  Na- 

20  tionality  Act  (as  amended  by  section  124(a)  of  this  part)  shall 

21  apply  to  applications  for  asylum  made  after  the  date  of  the 

22  enactment  of  this  Act,  except  that — 

23  (i)  in  the  case  of  an  alien  against  whom  exclusion 

24  or  deportation  proceedings  have  been  instituted  as  of 

25  the  date  of  the  enactment  of  this  Act,  the  restriction  of 


45 


40 

1  paragraph  (l)(B)(i)  of  section  208(a)  of  the  Immigration 

2  and  Nationality  Act  (as  so  amended)  shall  apply  to 

3  asylmn  applications  made  more  than  14  days  after  the 

4  date  of  the  enactment  of  this  Act  (rather  than  the  date 

5  of  the  service  of  the  notice  of  such  exclusion  or  depor- 

6  tation  proceeding),  and 

7  (ii)  references  in  any  such  paragraph  to  an  admin- 

8  istrative  law  judge  shall  be  deemed  (before  the  asylum 

9  transition  date)  to  be  a  reference  to  the  immigration  of- 

10  ficer  conducting  the  asylum  hearing. 

11  (b)(1)  The  President  shall  nominate  the  Chairman  and 

12  other  members   of  the  United  States  Immigration  Board 

13  (hereinafter  in  this  section  referred  to  as  the  "Board")  not 

14  later  than  45  days  after  the  date  of  the  enactment  of  this  Act. 

15  (2)  The  Chairman,  in  consultation  with  the  Attorney 

16  General,  shall  designate  a  date,  not  later  than  45  days  after 

17  the  Chairman  and  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the  Board 

18  are  appointed,  on  which  the  Board  shall  assume  the  present 

19  functions  of  the  Board  of  Lnmigration  Appeals  (under  exist- 

20  ing  rules  and  regulations). 

21  (3)(A)  The  Board  shall  provide  promptly  for  establish- 

22  ment  of  interim  final  rules  of  practice  and  procedure  which 

23  will  apply  to  the  Board  (when  not  acting  as  the  Board  of 

24  Immigration  Appeals  under  paragraph  (2))  and  administrative 

25  law  judges  under  the  Immigration  and  Nationality  Act,  after 


46 


41 

1  the  hearing  transition  date  or  asylum  transition  date,  desig- 

2  nated  under  subsection  (c)(1),  as  the  case  may  be. 

3  (B)  Not  later  than  60  days  after  the  date  such  interim 

4  final  rules  are  established,  the  Chairman  shall  appoint  at 

5  least  10  administrative  law  judges  who  are  qualified  to  be 

6  designated  to  hear  asylum  cases  under  section  208  of  the 

7  Immigration  and  NationaUty  Act.  The  Board  shall  provide 

8  for  such  special  training  of  these  administrative  law  judges  as 

9  it  deems  appropriate. 

10  (c)(1)  In  order  to  provide  for  the  orderly  transfer  of  pro- 

11  ceedings  from  the  existing  special  mquiry  system  to  the  ad- 

12  ministrative  law  judge  system,  the  Board,  in  consultation 

13  with  the  Attorney  General,  shall  designate — 

14  (A)  a  "hearing  transition  date",  to  be  not  later 

15  than  45  days  after  the  date  interim  final  rules  of  prac- 

16  tice   and   procedure   are   established  under   subsection 

17  (b)(3)(A),  and 

18  (B)  an  "asylum  transition  date",  after  the  estab- 

19  hshment  of  interim  final  rules  of  practice  and  procedure 

20  respecting  applications  for  asylum  and  after  the  ap- 

21  pointment  and  designation  of  administrative  law  judges, 

22  in  accordance   with   section   3105   of  title   5,   United 

23  States  Code,  under  subsection  (b)(3)(B). 

24  (2)  During  the  period  before  the  hearing  transition  date 

25  or  the  asylum  transition  date  (in  the  case  of  asylum  hearings), 


47 


42 

1  any  proceeding  or  hearing  under  the  Immigration  and  Na- 

2  tionahty  Act  which  may  be  conducted  by  a  special  inquiry 

3  officer  may  be  conducted  by  an  mdividual  appointed  and 

4  qualified  as  an  administrative  law  judge  in  accordance  with 

5  all  the  rules  and  procedures  otherwise  applicable  to  a  special 

6  inquiry  officer's  conduct  of  such  proceeding  or  hearing. 

7  (d)  Individuals  acting  as  special  inquiry  officers  on  the 

8  date  of  the  enactment  of  this  Act  and  on  the  hearing  transi- 

9  tion  date  may  (without  regard  to  other  pro\dsions  of  law)  con- 

10  tinue  to  conduct  proceedings  or  hearings  under  the  Immigra- 

1 1  tion  and  Nationality  Act  after  such  transition  date  during  the 

12  period  ending  two  years  after  the  date  of  the  enactment  of 

13  this  Act. 

14  (e)(1)  The  enactment  of  this  part  shall  not  result  in  any 

15  loss  of  rights  or  powers,  interruption  of  jurisdiction,  or  preju- 

16  dice  to  matters  pending  in  the  Board  of  Immigration  Appeals 

17  or  before  special  inquiry  officers  on  the  day  before  this  Act 

18  takes  effect, 

19  (2)  Under  rules  estabhshed  by  the  United  States  Immi- 

20  gration  Board,  with  respect  to  exclusion  and  deportation 

21  cases  pending  as  of  the  hearing  transition  date  and  apphca- 

22  tions  for  asylum  pending  as  of  the  asylum  transition  date,  the 

23  United  States  Immigration  Board  shall  be  deemed  to  be  a 

24  continuation  of  the  Board  of  Immigration  Appeals  and  ad- 

25  mmistrative  law  judges  shall  be  deemed  to  be  a  continuation 


48 


43 

1  of  special  inquiry  officers  for  the  purposes  of  effectuating  the 

2  continuation  of  all  existing  powers,  rights,  and  jurisdiction. 

3  (f)  In  order  to  implement  this  section  and  the  amend- 

4  ments  made  by  this  part,  there  are  authorized  to  be  appropri- 

5  ated  $20,000,000  for  fiscal  year  1984. 

6  TECHNICAL  AND  CONFORMING  AMENDMENTS 

7  Sec.  126.  (a)(1)  Section  101(a)  (8  U.S.C.  1101(a))  is 

8  amended  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  paragraph: 

9  "(43)  The  term  'administrative  law  judge'  means  such  a 

10  judge  appointed  under  section  107.". 

11  (2)  Section  101(b)  (8  U.S.C.   1101(b))  is  amended  by 

12  striking  out  paragraph  (4)  and  redesignating  paragraph  (5)  as 

13  paragraph  (4). 

14  (b)  The  first  sentence  of  section  234  (8  U.S.C.  1124)  is 

15  amended  by  striking  out  "special  inquiry  officers"  and  insert- 

16  ing  in  lieu  thereof  "administrative  law  judges". 

17  (c)(1)  Subsection  (a)  of  section  235  (8  U.S.C.  1225)  is 

18  amended — 

19  (A)  by  striking  out  "special  inquiry  officers"  in 

20  the  first  sentence  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  "admin- 

21  istrative  law  judges", 

22  (B)  by  striking  out  ",  including  special  inquiry  of- 

23  ficers,"   in  the  fourth  sentence   and  inserting  in  lieu 

24  thereof  "and  any  administrative  law  judge", 


49 

44 

1  (C)  by  striMng  out  ",  including  special  inquiry  of- 

2  ficers,"  in  the  sixth  sentence, 

3  (D)  by  striking  out  "and  special  inquiry  officers" 

4  in  the  sixth  sentence  and  inserting  in  Ueu  thereof  "and 

5  administrative  law  judges",  and 

6  (E)  by  striking  out  "special  inquiry  officer"  each 

7  place  it  appears  in  the  seventh  sentence  and  inserting 

8  in  lieu  thereof  "administrative  law  judge". 

9  (2)  Subsection  (c)  of  such  section  is  amended — 

10  (A)  by   striking  out   "the   special  inquiry   officer 

11  during  the  examination  before  either  of  such  officers" 

12  in    the    first    sentence    and    inserting    in    lieu    thereof 

13  "during  the  examination  or  an  administrative  law  judge 

14  during  an  exclusion  hearing", 

15  (B)  by  striking  out  "no  further  inquiry  by  a  spe- 

16  cial  mquiry  officer"  in  the  first  sentence  and  inserting 

17  in  lieu  thereof  "no  further  examination  or  exclusion 

18  hearing", 

19  (C)  by  strikmg  out  "inquiry  or  further  inquiry"  m 

20  the  first  sentence  and  mserting  in  lieu  thereof  "exami- 

21  nation  or  hearing", 

22  (D)  by  striking  out  "any  inquiry  or  further  inquiry 

23  by  a  special  inquiry  officer"  in  the  second  sentence  and 

24  mserting  in  lieu  thereof  "any  examination  or  hearing", 

25  and 


50 


45 

1  (E)  by  striking  out  "an  inquiry  before  a  special  in- 

2  quiry  officer"  in  the  third  sentence  and  inserting  m  lieu 

3  thereof  "an  exclusion  hearing  before  an  administrative 

4  law  judge". 

5  (d)    Sections    106(a)(2),    236,    and   242(b)    (8    U.S.C. 

6  1105a(a)(2),  1126,  1252(b))  are  each  amended  by  striking  out 

7  "A"  and  "a"  each  place  either  appears  before  "special  in- 

8  quiry  officer"  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  "An"  and  "an", 

9  respectively. 

10  (e)(1)  Sections  106(a)(2)  and  236  (8  U.S.C.  1105a(a)(2), 

11  1226)  are  each  amended  by  striking  out  "special  inquiry  offi- 

12  cer"  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  "administrative  law  judge" 

13  each  place  it  appears. 

14  (2)  Subsection  (a)  of  section  236  (8  U.S.C.   1226)  is 

15  amended — 

16  (A)  by  amending  the  first  sentence  to  read  as  fol- 

17  lows:  "An  administrative  law  judge  shall  conduct  pro- 

18  ceedings  under  this  section.", 

19  (B)  by  striking  out  "for  further  inquiry"  m  the 

20  second  sentence  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  "for  an 

21  exclusion  hearing", 

22  (C)  by  striking  out  "at  the  inquiry"  in  the  third 

23  sentence  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  "at  the  hearing", 

24  (D)  by  striking  out  the  fourth  sentence. 


51 


46 

1  (E)  by  striking  out  "regulations  as  the  Attorney 

2  General  shall  prescribe"  in  the  fifth  sentence  and  in- 

3  serting  in  lieu  thereof  "rules  as  the  United  States  Im- 

4  migration  Board  shall  establish",  and 

5  (F)  by  striking  out  "inquiry"  in  the  seventh  sen- 

6  tence  and  inserting  in  Ueu  thereof  "hearing". 

7  (3)  Subsection  (b)  of  such  section  is  amended — 

8  (A)  by  striking  out  "From  a  decision"  and  all  that 

9  follows  through  "Attorney  General"  in  the  first  sen- 

10  tence  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  the  following:  "From 

11  a  decision  of  an  administrative  law  judge  excluding  or 

12  admitting  an  alien,  the  alien  or  the  immigration  officer 

13  in  charge  at  the  port  where  the  hearing  is  held,  respec- 

14  tively,  may  file  a  timely  appeal  of  the  decision  with  the 

15  United  States  Immigration  Board  in  accordance  with 

16  rules  established  by  the  Board", 

17  (B)  by  striking  out   "Attorney  General"   in  the 

18  fourth  sentence  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  "United 

19  States  Immigration  Board",  and 

20  (C)  by  striking  out  the  third  sentence. 

21  (4)  Subsection  (c)  of  such  section  is  amended  by  striking 

22  out  "to  the  Attorney  General". 

23  (f)  Section  242(b)  (8  U.S.C.  1252(b))  is  amended— 

24  (1)  by  striking  out  "special  inquiry  officer"  each 

25  place  it  appears  in  the  first,  second,  third,  and  seventh 


52 

47 

1  sentences  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  "administrative 

2  law  judge", 

3  (2)  by  striking  out  "shall  administer  oaths"  and 

4  all  that  follows  through  "Attorney  General,"  in  the 

5  first  sentence, 

6  (3)  by  striking  out  "Attorney  General  shall  pre- 

7  scribe"  in  the  second  sentence  and  inserting  in  lieu 

8  thereof  "United  States  Immigration  Board  shall  estab- 

9  lish", 

10  (4)  by  striking  out  "In  any  case"  and  all  that  fol- 

11  lows  through  "an  additional  immigration  officer"  in  the 

12  fourth  sentence  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  "An  immi- 

13  gration  officer"  and  by  striking  out  "in  such  case  such 

14  additional  immigration  officer"  in  that  sentence, 

15  (5)  by  striking  out  the  fifth  and  sixth  sentences, 

16  (6)  by  striking  out  "such  regulations"  and  all  that 

17  follows  through  "shall  prescribe"  in  the  seventh  sen- 

18  tence  and  inserting  in  heu  thereof  "rules  as  are  estab- 

19  Ushed  by  the  United  States  Immigration  Board", 

20  (7)   by   striking   out    "Such   regulations"    in   the 

21  eighth  sentence   and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  "Such 

22  rules",  and 

23  (8)  by  striking  out  "Attorney  General  shall  be 

24  final"  in  the  tenth  sentence  and  inserting  in  lieu  there- 


53 


48 

1  of  "administrative  law  judge  shall  be  final  unless  re- 

2  versed  on  appeal". 

3  (g)   The   last   sentence   of   section   273(d)   (8   U.S.C. 

4  1323(d))  is  amended  by  strildng  out  "special  mquiry  officers" 

5  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  "administrative  law  judges". 

6  (h)  Section  292  (8  U.S.C.  1362)  is  amended— 

7  (1)   by    striking   out    "Li"    and   all    that   follows 

8  through  "proceedmgs,"   and  inserting  in  Ueu  thereof 

9  "In  any  proceeding  or  hearing  before  an  administrative 

10  law  judge  and  in  any  appeal  before  the  United  States 

11  Immigration  Board  from  any  such  proceeding",  and 

12  (2)  by  inserting  "and  at  no  unreasonable  delay" 

13  after  "Government". 

14  (i)  Section  360(c)  (8  U.S.C.  1503(c))  is  amended— 

15  (1)  by  inserting  "(and  appeals  thereoO"  in  the  first 

16  sentence  after  "proceedings",  and 

17  (2)  by  striking  out  the  second  sentence. 

18  (j)  Any  reference  in  section  203(h)  of  the  Immigration 

19  and  Nationality  Act,  as  in  effect  before  March  17,  1980,  to  a 

20  special  inquiry  officer  shall  be  deemed  to  be  a  reference  also 

21  to  an  admuiistrative  law  judge  under  section  101(a)(43)  of 

22  such  Act. 


54 


49 

1  Part  D — Adjustment  of  Status 

2  limitations  on  adjustment  of  nonimmigrants  to 

3  immigrant  status  by  out-of-status  aliens 

4  Sec.  131.  (a)  Section  245(c)(2)  (8  U.S.C.  1255(c)(2))  is 

5  amended  by  inserting  after  "hereafter  continues  in  or  accepts 

6  unauthorized  employment  prior  to  filing  an  application  for  ad- 

7  justment  of  status"  the  following:  "or  who  is  not  in  legal 

8  immigration  status  on  the  date  of  filmg  the  application  for 

9  adjustment  of  status". 

10  (b)  The  amendment  made  by  subsection  (a)  shall  apply 

11  to  applications  for  adjustment  of  status  pending  on  the  date  of 

12  the  enactment  of  this  Act. 

13  (c)  For  amendment  prohibiting  certain  noninomigrant 

14  students  and  visitors  entering  under  visa  waivers  from  adjust- 

15  ing  their  status  to  unmigrants,  see  section  212(b)  of  this  Act. 

16  TITLE  n— REFOEM  OF  LEGAL  IMMIGRATION 

17  Part  A — Immigrants 

18  LABOR  certification 

19  Sec.  201.  (a)  Paragraph  (14)  of  section  212(a)  (8  U.S.C. 

20  1182)  is  amended  by  striking  out  "(A)"  and  all  that  follows 

21  through  the  end  and  msertmg  in  lieu  thereof  the  following: 

22  "(A)  there  are  not  sufficient  qualified  workers  (or  equally 

23  qualified  workers  in  the  case  of  aliens  (i)  who  are  members  of 

24  the  teaching  profession,  (ii)  who  have  exceptional  ability  m 

25  the  sciences  or  arts,  or  (iii)  who  have  doctoral  degrees  and 


55 


50 

1  are  seeking  to  enter  the  United  States  to  be  employed  as 

2  researchers  at  colleges,  universities,  or  other  nonprofit  educa- 

3  tional  or  research  institutions)  available  in  the  United  States 

4  in  the  occupations  in  which  the  ahens  will  be  employed;  (B) 

5  sufficient  workers  in  the  United  States  could  not  within  a 

6  reasonable  period  of  time  be  trained  for  such  occupations;  and 

7  (C)  the  employment  of  ahens  in  such  occupations  wUl  not 

8  adversely  affect  the  wages  and  working  conditions  of  workers 

9  in  the  United  States  who  are  similarly  employed.  In  making 

10  such  determinations  the  Secretary  of  Labor  may  use  labor 

11  market  mformation  with  or  without  reference  to  the  specific 

12  job  opportunity  for  which  certification  is  requested.  An  aUen 

13  on  behalf  of  whom  a  certification  is  sought  must  have  an  offer 

14  of  employment  from  an  employer  in  the  United  States.  The 

15  exclusion  of  ahens  under  this  paragraph  shall  only  apply  to 

16  preference  immigrants  described  in  paragraph  (3)  or  (6)  of 

17  section  203(a)  and  to  nonpreference  immigrants  described  in 

18  section  203(a)(7).  Decisions  of  the  Secretary  of  Labor  made 

19  pursuant  to  this  paragraph,  including  the  issuance  and  con- 

20  tent  of  regulations  and  the  use  of  labor  market  information 

21  under  this  paragraph,  shall  be  reviewable  by  an  appropriate 

22  district  court  of  the  United  States,  but  the  court  shall  not  set 

23  aside  such  a  decision  unless  there  is  compelling  evidence  that 

24  the  Secretary  made  such  decision  in  an  arbitrary  and  capri- 

25  cious  manner;". 


56 


51 

1  (b)  The  amendment  made  by  subsection  (a)  shall  take 

2  effect  on  October  1,  1984.  When  an  immigrant,  in  possession 

3  of  an  unexpired  immigrant  visa  issued  before  October   1, 

4  1984,    makes    application   for    admission,    his    admissibility 

5  under  section  212(a)(20)  shall  be  determined  under  the  provi- 

6  sions  of  law  in  effect  on  the  date  of  the  issuance  of  such  visa, 

7  without  regard  to  the  amendment  made  by  subsection  (a). 

8  G-4  SPECIAL  IMMIGRANTS 

9  Sec.  202.  (a)  Section  101(a)(27)  (8  U.S.C.  1101(a)(27)) 

10  is  amended  by  striking  out  "or"  at  the  end  of  subparagranh 

11  (G),  by  striking  out  the  period  at  the  end  of  subparagraph  (H) 

12  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  ";  or",  and  by  adding  at  the  end 

13  the  following  new  subparagraph: 

14  "(I)  an  immigrant  who  entered  the  United  States 

15  with  the  status  of  a  nonimmigrant  under  paragraph 

16  (15)(G)(iv)  and  who— 

17  "(i)  is  the  unmarried  son  or  daughter  of  an 

18  officer  or  employee  of  an  international  organiza- 

19  tion   described  in  paragraph   (15)(G)(iv),   and  (I) 

20  while  maintaining  the  status  of  a  nonimmigrant 

21  under  paragraph  (15)(G)(iv)  or  paragraph  (15)(N), 

22  has  resided  and  been  physically  present  in  the 

23  United  States  within  seven  years  of  the  date  of 

24  application  for  a  visa  under  this  subparagraph  and 

25  for  a  period  or  periods  aggregating  at  least  seven 


57 

52 

1  years  between  the  ages  of  five  and  18  years,  and 

2  (n)  applies  for  admission  under  this  subparagraph 

3  no    later    than    his    twenty-fifth   birthday    or    six 

4  months  after  the  date  this   subparagraph  is   en- 

5  acted,  whichever  is  later;  or 

6  "(ii)  is  the  surviving  spouse  of  a  deceased  of- 

7  ficer  or  employee  of  such  an  international  organi- 

8  zation,  and  (I)  while  maintaining  the  status  of  a 

9  nonimmigrant    under    paragraph    (15)(G)(iv)     or 

10  paragraph    (15)(N),    has    resided    m    the    United 

11  States  withm  seven  years  of  the  date  of  applica- 

12  tion  for  a  visa  under  this  subparagraph  and  for  a 

13  period  or  periods  aggregating  at  least   15  years 

14  prior  to  the  death  of  such  officer  or  employee,  and 

15  (IT)  applies  for  admission  under  this  subparagraph 

16  no  later  than  six  months  after  the  date  of  such 

17  death  or  six  months  after  the  date  this  subpara- 

18  graph  is  enacted,  whichever  is  later.". 

19  (b)  Section  101(a)(15)  (8  U.S.C.  1101(a)(15))  is  amended 

20  by  striking  out  "or"  at  the  end  of  subparagraph  (L),  by  strik- 

21  ing  out  the  period  at  the  end  of  subparagraph  (M)  and  insert- 

22  ing  in  lieu  thereof  ";  or",  and  by  adding  at  the  end  the  fol- 

23  lowing  new  subparagraph: 


18-556    0—83 5 


58 


53 

1  "(N)(i)  the  parent  of  an  alien  accorded  the  status 

2  of  a  special  immi^ant  under  paragraph  (27)(I)(i),  but 

3  only  if  and  while  the  alien  is  a  child,  or 

4  "(ii)  a  child  cf  such  parent  or  of  an  alien  accorded 

5  the    status    of   a   special   immigrant   under   paragraph 

6  (27)(J)(ii).". 

7  MISCELLANEOUS  PROVISIONS 

8  Sec.     203.     (a)     Section     101(b)(l)CD)     (8     U.S.C. 

9  1101(b)(l)CD))  is  amended  by  inserting  "or  natural  father" 

10  after  "natural  mother". 

11  (b)  Section  19(2)  of  Public  Law  97-116  is  amended  by 

12  inserting  "(A)"  after  "because"  and  by  adding  before  the 

13  semicolon  at  the  end  the  following:  ",  or  (B)  the  alien  was 

14  entering  the  United  States  for  the  purpose  of  retirement, 

15  would  not  seek  gainful  employment  in  the  United  States,  had 

16  purchased  property  in  the  United  States  before  such  date, 

17  and  had  demonstrated  the  ability  for  self-support  while  in  re- 

18  tirement". 

19  (c)  In  the  case  of  an  alien — 

20  (1)  who  is  in  the  United  States  on  October   1, 

21  1982, 

22  (2)  who,  as  of  such  date — 

23  (A)  has  had  a  petition  approved  for  classifica- 

24  tion  under  section  203(a)(3)  or  (6)  of  the  Immigra- 

25  tion  and  Nationality  Act,  and 

HR  1510  IH 


59 


54 

1  (B)    has    been    issued    a    labor    certification 

2  under  section  212(a)(14)  of  such  Act  with  respect 

3  to  employment  for  an  employer, 

4  (3)  who  intends  to  remain  in  the  United  States  for 

5  the  purpose  of  performing  such  emplo3Tnent,  and 

6  (4)  with  respect  to  whom  the  Attorney  General 

7  estimates  that  an  immigrant  visa  will  become  available 

8  before  October  1,  1984, 

9  the  Attorney  General  may  provide  that,  notwithstanding  any 

10  provision  of  section  214  of  the  Immigration  and  Nationality 

11  Act,  the  alien  may  be  classified  as  a  nonimmigrant  under 

12  section  101(a)(15)(H)(ii)  of  such  Act  with  respect  to  such  em- 

13  ployment  until  October  1,   1984,  or,  if  earlier,  one  month 

14  after  the  date  the  alien's  immigrant  visa  becomes  available. 

15  For  purposes  of  applying  section  245  of  such  Act  to  an  alien 

16  classified  as  a  nonimmigrant  under  this  subsection,  the  alien 

17  shall  be  considered  to  have  been  inspected  and  admitted  into 

18  the  United  States  and  subsection  (c)(2)  of  that  section  shall 

19  not  apply. 

20  Paet  B — Nonimmigrants 

21  h-2  workers 

22  Sec.  211.  (a)  Paragraph  (15)(H)  of  section  101(a)  (8 

23  U.S.C.  1101(a))  is  amended  by  striking  out  "to  perform  tem- 

24  porary  services  or  labor,  if  unemployed  persons  capable  of 

25  performing  such  service  or  labor  cannot  be  found  in  this 


60 

55 

1  country"  in  clause  (ii)  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  "(a)  to 

2  perform  agricultural  labor  or  services,  as  defined  by  the  Sec- 

3  retary  of  Labor  in  regulations  and  including  agricultural  labor 

4  defined  in  section  3121(g)  of  the  Internal  Revenue  Code  of 

5  1954  and  agriculture  defined  in  section  3(f)  of  the  Fau-  Labor 

6  Standards  Act  of  1938,  of  a  temporary  or  seasonal  nature,  or 

7  (b)  to  perform  other  temporary  services  or  labor". 

8  (b)  Section  214  (8  U.S.C.  1184)  is  amended— 

9  (1)  by  adding  at  the  end  of  subsection  (a)  the  fol- 

10  lowing  new  sentences: 

11  "An  alien  may  not  be  admitted  to  the  United  States  as  a 

12  nonimmigrant — 

13  "(1)  under  section  101(a)(15)(ID(ii)(a)  for  an  ag- 

14  gregate  period  longer  than  the  period  (or  periods)  de- 

15  termined  by  regulations  of  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  or 

16  "(2)   under   section    101(a)(15)(ID(ii)   if  the   alien 

17  was  admitted  to  the  United  States  as  such  a  nonimmi- 

18  grant  within  the  previous  five-year  period  and  the  alien 

19  during  that  period  violated  a  term  or  condition  of  such 

20  previous  admission. 

21  The  Attorney  General  shall  provide  for  such  endorsement  of 

22  entry  and  exit  documents  of  nonimmigrants  described  in  sec- 

23  tion  101(a)(15)(H)(ii)  as  may  be  necessary  to  carry  out  this 

24  section  and  to  provide  notice  for  purposes  of  section  274A.", 


HR  1510  IH 


61 

56 

1  (2)  by  inserting  "(1)"  after  "(c)"  in  subsection  (c), 

2  and 

3  (3)  by  adding  at  the  end  of  subsection  (c)(1),  as  so 

4  redesignated,  the  following: 

5  "For  purposes  of  this  paragraph  the  term  'appropriate  agen- 

6  cies  of  Government'  means  the  Department  of  Labor  and  in- 

7  eludes,  with  respect  to  nonimmigrants  described  in  section 

8  101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a),  the  Department  of  Agriculture. 

9  "(2)(A)(i)  A  petition  to  import  an  alien  as  a  nonimmi- 

10  grant  under  section  101(a)(15)(II)(ii)(a)  may  not  be  approved 

11  by  the  Attorney  General  unless  the  petitioner  has  appHed  to 

12  the  Secretary  of  Labor  for  a  certification  that — 

13  "(I)  there  are  not  sufficient  workers  who  are  able, 

14  willing,  and  qualified  and  who  will  be  available  at  the 

15  time  and  place  needed  to  perform  the  labor  or  services 

16  involved  in  the  petition,  and 

17  "(TO  the  employment  of  the  alien  in  such  labor  or 

18  services  will  not  adversely  affect  the  wages  and  work- 

19  ing  conditions  of  workers  in  the  United  States  similarly 

20  employed. 

21  "(ii)  A  petition  to  unport  an  alien  as  a  nonimmigrant 

22  under  section  101(a)(15)(ID(ii)(b)  may  not  be  approved  by  the 

23  Attorney  General  unless  the  petitioner  has  appUed  to  the 

24  Secretary  of  Labor  for  a  certification  that — 


HR  1510  IH 


62 


57 

1  "(I)    there    are    not    sufficient    qualified    workers 

2  available  in  the  United  States  to  perform  the  labor  or 

3  services  involved  in  the  petition,  and 

4  "(II)  the  employment  of  the  alien  in  such  labor  or 

5  services  will  not  adversely  affect  the  wages  and  work- 

6  ing  conditions  of  workers  in  the  United  States  similarly 

7  employed. 

8  "(iii)  The  Secretary  of  Labor  may  require  by  regulation, 

9  as  a  condition  of  issuing  the  certification,  the  payment  of  a 

10  fee  to  recover  the  reasonable  costs  of  processing  applications 

1 1  for  certification. 

12  "(B)  The  Secretary  of  Labor  may  not  issue  a  certifica- 

13  tion  under  subparagraph  (A) — 

14  "(i)  if  there  is  a  strike  or  lockout  in  the  course  of 

15  a  labor  dispute  which,  under  the  regulations,  precludes 

16  such  certification,  or 

17  "(ii)  with  respect  to  an  employer  if  the  employer 

18  during  the  previous  two-year  period  employed  nonim- 

19  migrant  aliens   admitted  to  the  United  States  under 

20  section  101(a)(15)(H)(ii)  and  the  Secretary  of  Labor  has 

21  determined,  after  notice  and  opportunity  for  a  hearing, 

22  that  the  employer  at  any  time  during  that  period  sub- 

23  stantially  violated  a  material  term  or  condition  of  the 

24  labor  certification  with  respect  to  the  employment  of 

25  domestic  or  nonimmigrant  workers. 

HR  1510  m 


63 


58 

1  No  employer  may  be  denied  certification  under  clause  (ii)  for 

2  more  than  three  years  for  any  violation  described  in  such 

3  clause. 

4  "(3)(A)  In  the  case  of  an  application  for  a  labor  certifica- 

5  tion       for       a      nonimmigrant       described      in       section 

6  101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a)— 

7  "(i)  the  Secretary  of  Labor  may  not  require  that 

8  the  application  be  filed  more  than  50  days  before  the 

9  first  date  the  employer  requires  the  labor  or  services  of 

10  the  alien; 

11  "(ii)   the    employer    shall   be   notified   in   writing 

12  within  seven  days  of  the  date  of  filing  if  the  application 

13  does  not  meet  the  standards  (other  than  that  described 

14  m  paragraph  (2)(A)(i)(I))  for  approval  and  if  it  does  not, 

15  such   notice    shall    include    the    reasons    therefor    and 

16  permit    the    employer    an    opportunity    to    resubmit 

17  promptly  a  modified  application  for  approval;  and 

18  "(iii)  the  Secretary  of  Labor  shall  make,  not  later 

19  than  20  days  before  the  date  such  labor  or  services  are 

20  first   requked   to   be   performed,    the   certification   de- 

21  scribed  in  paragraph  (2)(A)(i)  if  the  employer  has  com- 

22  plied  with  the  criteria  for  certification,  including  crite- 

23  ria  for  the  recruitment  of  eligible  individuals  as  pre- 

24  scribed  by  the  Secretary,  and  if  the  employer  does  not 

25  actually  have,  or  has  not  been  provided  with  referrals 

HR  1510  IH 


64 

59 

1  of,    qualified   eligible   individuals   who   have   indicated 

2  their  availability  to  perform  such  labor  or  services  on 

3  the  terms  and  conditions  of  a  job  offer  which  meets  the 

4  requirements  of  the  Secretary,  except  that  the  terms  of 

5  such  a  labor  certification  remain  effective  only  if  the 

6  employer  continues  to  accept  for  employment,  until  the 

7  date  the  aliens  depart  for  work  with  the  employer, 

8  qualified  eligible  individuals  who  apply  or  are  referred 

9  to  the  employer. 

10  "(B)  A  petition  to  import  an  alien  as  a  nonimmigrant 

11  described  in  section  101(a){15)(H)(ii)(a),  and  an  appUcation 

12  for  a  labor  certification  with  respect  to  such  an  aUen,  may  be 

13  filed  by  an  association  representing  agricultural  producers 

14  which  use  agricultural  labor  or  services.  The  filing  of  such  a 

15  petition  or  application  on  a  member's  behalf  does  not  relieve 

16  the  member  of  any  liability  for  representations  made  in  such 

17  petition  or  application. 

18  "(C)(i)  The  Secretary  of  Labor  shall  provide  for  an  ex- 

19  pedited  procedure  for  the  review  of  a  denial  of  certification 

20  under  paragraph  (2)(A)(i). 

21  "(ii)  The  Secretary  of  Labor  shall  expeditiously,  but  in 

22  no  case  later  than  72  hours  after  the  time  a  new  determina- 

23  tion  is  requested,  make  a  new  determination  on  the  request 

24  for  certification  in  the  case  of  importing  a  nonimmigrant  de- 

25  scribed  in  section   101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a)  if  able,  willing,   and 

HR  1510  m 


65 


60 

1  qualified  eligible  individuals  are  not  actually  available  at  the 

2  time  such  labor  or  services  are  required  and  a  certification 

3  was  denied  in  whole  or  in  part  because  of  the  availability  of 

4  qualified  eligible  individuals.  If  the  employer  asserts  that  any 

5  eligible  individuals  who  have  been  referred  are  not  able,  will- 

6  ing  or  qualified,  the  burden  of  proof  is  on  the  employer  to 

7  establish  that  the  mdividuals  referred  are  not  able,  willmg,  or 

8  qualified  because  of  employment-related  reasons  as  shown  by 

9  their  job  performance. 

10  "(D)  For  purposes  of  this  paragraph,  the  term  'eligible 

11  individual'  means,  with  respect  to  employment,  an  individual 

12  who   is   not   an  unauthorized  alien   (as   defmed  in   section 

13  274A(a)(4))  with  respect  to  that  employment. 

14  "(4)  The  Secretary  of  Labor,  in  consultation  with  the 

15  Attorney  General  and  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  shall  an- 

16  nually  report  to  the  Congress  on  the  certifications  provided 

17  under  this  subsection,  the  impact  of  aliens  admitted  pursuant 

18  to  such  certifications  on  labor  conditions  m  the  United  States, 

19  and  on  compliance  of  employers  and  nonunmigrants  with  the 

20  terms  and  conditions  of  such  nonimmigrants'  admission  to  the 

21  United  States. 

22  "(5)  There  are  authorized  to  be  appropriated  for  each 

23  fiscal  year,  begmning  with  fiscal  year  1984,  $10,000,000  for 

24  the  purposes  (A)  of  recruiting  domestic  workers  for  tempo- 

25  rary  labor  and  services  which  might  otherwise  be  performed 


66 


61 

1  by  nonimmigrants  described  in  section  101(a)(15)(H)(ii),  and 

2  (B)  of  monitoring  terms  and  conditions  under  which  such  non- 

3  inunigrants  (and  domestic  workers  employed  by  the  same  em- 

4  ployers)  are  employed  in  the  United  States.  The  Secretary  of 

5  Labor  is  authorized  to  take  such  actions,  including  imposing 

6  appropriate  penalties  and  seeking  appropriate  injunctive  relief 

7  and  specific  performance  of  contractual  obligations,  as  may 

8  be  necessary  to  assure  employer  compliance  with  terms  and 

9  conditions  of  emplo3Tiient  under  this  subsection. 

10  "(6)  There  are  authorized  to  be  appropriated  for  each 

11  fiscal  year,  beginning  with  fiscal  year  1984,  such  sums  as 

12  may  be  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  the  Secretary  of 

13  Labor  to  make  determinations  and  certifications  under  this 

14  subsection  and  under  section  212(a)(14).". 

15  (c)  The  amendments  made  by  this  section  apply  to  peti- 

16  tions  and  applications  filed  under  section  214(c)  of  the  Immi- 

17  gration  and  Nationality  Act  on  or  after  the  first  day  of  the 

18  seventh  month  beginning  after  the  date  of  the  enactment  of 

19  this  Act  (hereinafter  in  this  section  referred  to  as  the  "effec- 

20  tivedate"). 

21  (d)  Notwithstanding  any  other  provision  of  law,  final 

22  regulations  implementing  the  amendments  made  by  this  sec- 

23  tion  shall  first  be  issued,  on  an  interim  or  other  basis,  not 

24  later  than  the  effective  date. 


HR  1510  m 


67 

62 

1  (e)  The  Secretary  of  Labor,  in  consultation  with  the  At- 

2  tomey  General  and  the  Secretary  of  Agriculture,  shall  report 

3  to  the  Congress  not  later  than  18  months  after  the  effective 

4  date  on  reconunendations  for  unprovements  in  the  temporary 

5  alien  worker  program  amended  by  this  section,  including  rec- 

6  ommendations — 

7  (1)  improving  the  timeliness  of  decisions  regarding 

8  admission  of  temporary  foreign  workers  under  the  pro- 

9  gram, 

^Q  (2)  removing  any  current  economic  disincentives 

11  to  hiring  United  States  citizens  or  permanent  resident 

12  aliens  where  temporary  foreign  workers  have  been  re- 

13  quested,  and 

14  (3)  improving  the  cooperation  among  government 

15  agencies,   employers,   employer   associations,   workers, 

16  unions,  and  other  worker  associations  to  end  the  de- 

17  pendence  of  any  industry  on  a  constant  supply  of  tem- 

18  porary  foreign  workers. 

19  (f)  It  is  the  sense  of  Congress  that  the  President  should 

20  establish  an  advisory  commission  which  shall  consult  with  the 

21  Government  of  Mexico  and  advise  the  Attorney  General  re- 

22  garding  the  operation  of  the  alien  temporary  worker  program 

23  established  under  section  214(c)  of  the  Immigration  and  Na- 

24  tionality  Act. 


68 


63 

1  STUDENTS 

2  Sec.   212.   (a)  Section  212(e)  (8  U.S.C.    1182(e))  is 

3  amended — 

4  (1)  by  striking  out  "(e)  No  person"  and  inserting 

5  in  lieu  thereof  "(e)(1)  No  person  (A)", 

6  (2)  by  inserting  after   "training,"   the  following: 

7  "or  (B)  except  as  provided  in  paragraph  (2),  admitted 

8  under  subparagraph  (F)  or  (M)  of  section  101(a)(15)  or 

9  acquiring  such  status  after  admission,", 

10  (3)  by  striking  out  "clause  (iii)"  in  the  second  pro- 

11  viso  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  "clause  (A)(iii)  or 

12  clause  (B)  of  the  first  sentence", 

13  (4)  by  striking  out  ":  Provided,  That  upon"  and 

14  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  ".  Upon", 

15  (5)  by  striking  out  ":  And  provided  further,  That 

16  except"  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  ".  Except",  and 

17  (6)  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following: 

18  "The  Attorney  General  may  waive  such  two-year  foreign 

19  residence  requirement  in  the  case  of  an  ahen  described  in 

20  clause  (B)  of  the  first  sentence  who  is  an  immediate  relative 

21  (as  specified  in  section  201(b)). 

22  "(2)  The  Attorney  General,  in  the  case  of  an  alien  de- 

23  scribed  in  clause  (B)  of  the  first  sentence  of  paragraph  (1) 

24  who    has    the    status    of    a    nonimmigrant    under    section 

25  101(a)(15)(F),  may  waive  the  two-year  foreign  residence  re- 

HR  1510  m 


69 

64 

1  quirement  of  paragraph  (1)  if  the  Attorney  General  deter- 

2  mines  that  the  waiver  is  in  the  pubhc  interest  and  that — 

3  "(A)  the  ahen— 

4  "(i)  has  obtained  a  degree  in  a  natural  sci- 

5  ence,  mathematics,  computer  science,  or  an  engi- 

6  neering  field  from  a  college  or  university  in  the 

7  United  States, 

8  "(ii)  is  applying  for  a  visa  as  an  immigrant 

9  described  in  paragraph  (3)  or  (6)  of  section  203(a), 

10  "(iii)(D  has  been  offered  a  position  on  the 

11  faculty  (including  as  a  researcher)  of  a  college  or 

12  university  in  the   United   States   in   the   field  m 

13  which  he  obtained  the  degree,  or 

14  "(II)  has  been  offered  a  research  or  technical 

15  position  by  a  employer  in  the  field  in  which  he  ob- 

16  tained  the  degree, 

17  "(iv)  has  received  a  certification  under  sec- 

18  tion  212(a)(14)  with  respect  to  such  position,  and 

19  "(v)  has  applied  for  a  waiver  under  this  para- 

20  graph  before  September  30,  1989;  or 

21  "(B)  the  alien— 

22  "(i)  has  obtained  a  degree  in  a  natural  sci- 

23  ence,  mathematics,  computer  science,  or  in  a  field 

24  of  engineering  or  business, 


HR  1510  IH 


70 


65 

1  "(ii)  is  applying  for  a  visa  as  a  nonimmigrant 

2  described  in  section  101(a)(15)(H)(iii), 

3  "(iii)  will  receive  no  more  than  three  years  of 

4  training  by   a  firm,   corporation,   or  other  legal 

5  entity  in  the  United  States,  which  training  will 

6  enable  the  alien  to  return  to  the  country  of  his  na- 

7  tionaUty  or  last  residence  and  be  employed  there 

8  as  a  manager  by  the  same  firm,  corporation,  or 

9  other  legal  entity,  or  a  branch,  subsidiary,  or  affil- 

10  iate  thereof,  and 

11  "(iv)   furnishes   the   Attorney   General   each 

12  year  with  an  affidavit  (in  such  form  as  the  Attor- 

13  ney  General  shall  prescribe)  that  attests  that  the 

14  alien  (I)  is  in  good  standing  in  the  training  pro- 

15  gram  in  which  the  alien  is  participating,  and  (II) 

16  will  return  to  the  country  of  his  nationality  or  last 

17  residence   upon   completion   of  the   training  pro- 

18  gram.", 

19  (b)  Section  245(c)  (8  U.S.C.   1255(c))  is  amended  by 

20  striking  out  "or"  before  "(3)"  and  by  inserting  before  the 

21  period  at  the  end  the  following:  ",  or  (4)  an  alien  (other  than 

22  an  immediate  relative  specified  in  section  201(b)  or  an  alien 

23  who  has  received  a  waiver  under  section  212(e)(2)(A))  who 

24  entered  the  United  States  classified  as  a  nonimmigrant  under 

25  subparagraph  (F)  or  (M)  of  section  101(a)(15)  or  who  was 

HR  1510  IH 


71 


66 

1  admitted  as  a  nonimmigrant  visitor  without  a  visa  under  sub- 

2  section  0)  or  (m)  of  section  212.". 

3  (c)  Section  244(b)  (8  U.S.C.  1254(b))  is  amended— 

4  (1)  by   striking   out   "(b)"    and  inserting  in  lieu 

5  thereof  "(b)(1)",  and 

6  (2)  by  adding  at  the  end  the  following: 

7  "(2)  In  determining  the  period  of  continuous  physical 

8  presence  in  the  United  States  under  subsection  (a),  there 

9  shall  not  be  included  any  period  in  which  the  alien  was  m  the 

10  United  States  as — 

11  "(A)  a  nonimmigrant  described  in  subparagraph 

12  (F)  or  (M)  of  section  101(a)(15),  or 

13  "(B)     a     nonimmigrant     described     in     section 

14  101(a)(15)(H)(iii),  pursuant  to  a  waiver  under  section 

15  212(e)(2)(B).". 

16  (d)(1)  The  amendments  made  by  subsection  (a)  apply  to 

17  aUens  admitted  to  the  United  States  as  a  nonimmigrant  de- 

18  scribed  in  subparagraph  (F)  or  (M)  of  section  101(a)(15)  of  the 

19  Immigration  and  Nationality  Act  after  the  date  of  the  enact- 

20  ment  of  this  Act  or  who  otherwise  acquire  such  status  after 

21  such  date. 

22  (2)  The  amendments  made  by  subsection  (b)  apply  to 

23  ahens  without  regard  to  the  date  the  aliens  enter  the  United 

24  States. 


HR  1510  m 


72 

67 

1  (3)  The  amendments  made  by  subsection  (c)  apply  to 

2  periods  occurring  on  or  after  the  date  of  the  enactment  of  this 

3  Act  and  shall  not  have  the  effect  of  excluding  (in  the  determi- 

4  nation  of  a  period  of  continuous  physical  presence  in  the 

5  United  States)  any  period  before  the  date  of  the  enactment  of 

6  this  Act. 

7  VISA  WAIVER  FOR  CERTAIN  VISITORS 

8  Sec.  213.  (a)  Section  212  (8  U.S.C.  1182)  is  amended 

9  by  adding  at  the  end  thereof  the  following  new  subsections: 

10  "(1)(1)  The  Attorney  General  and  the  Secretary  of  State 

11  are  authorized  to  establish  a  pilot  program  (hereinafter  in  this 

12  subsection  referred  to  as  the  'program')  under  which  the  re- 

13  quirement  of  paragraph  (26)(B)  of  subsection  (a)  may  be 

14  waived  by  the  Attorney  General  and  the  Secretary  of  State, 

15  acting  jointly  and  in  accordance  with  this  subsection,  in  the 

16  case  of  an  alien  who — 

17  "(A)  is  applying  for  admission  during  the  pilot 

18  program  period  (as  defined  in  paragraph  (5))  as  a  non- 
19  immigrant  visitor  (described  in  section   101(a)(15)(B)) 

20  for  a  period  not  exceeding  90  days; 

21  "(B)  is  a  national  of  a  country  which — 

22  "(i)  extends  or  agrees  to  extend  reciprocal 

23  privileges  to  citizens  and  nationals  of  the  United 

24  States,  and 


HR  1510  IH 


73 


68 

1  "(ii)  is  designated  as  a  pilot  country  under 

2  paragraph  (3); 

3  "(C)  before  such  admission  completes  such  inrnii- 

4  gration  form  as  the  Attorney  General  shall  establish 

5  under    paragraph    (2)(C)    and    executes    a    waiver    of 

6  review  and  appeal  described  in  paragraph  (2)(D); 

7  "(D)  has  a  round  trip,  nonrefundable,  nontransfer- 

8  able,  open-dated  transportation  ticket  which — 

9  "(i)  is  issued  by  a  carrier  which  has  entered 

10  into  an  agreement  described  in  paragraph  (4),  and 

11  "(ii)  guarantees  transport  of  the  alien  out  of 

12  the  United  States  at  the  end  of  the  ahen's  visit; 

13  and 

14  "(E)   has   been   determmed   not   to   represent   a 

15  threat  to  the  welfare,  safety,  or  security  of  the  United 

16  States; 

17  except  that  no  such  ahen  may  be  admitted  without  a  visa 

18  pursuant  to  this  subsection  if  the  alien  failed  to  comply  with 

19  the  conditions  of  any  previous  admission  as  a  normnmigrant. 

20  "(2)(A)  The  program  may  not  be  put  into  operation  until 

21  the  end  of  the  30-day  period  beginning  on  the  date  that  the 

22  Attorney  General  submits  to  the  Congress  a  certification  that 

23  the  screening  and  monitoring  system  described  in  subpara- 

24  graph  (B)  is  operational  and  that  the  form  described  in  sub- 

25  paragraph  (C)  has  been  produced. 


18-556    O— 83- 


74 


69 

1  "(B)  The  Attorney  General  in  cooperation  with  the  Sec- 

2  retary  of  State  shall  develop  and  establish  an  automated  data 

3  arrival  and  departure  control  system  to  screen  and  monitor 

4  the  arrival  and  departure  into  the  United  States  of  nonimmi- 

5  grant  visitors  receiving  a  visa  waiver  under  the  program. 

6  "(C)  The  Attorney  General  shall  develop  a  form  for  use 

7  under  the  program.  Such  form  shall  be  consistent  and  com- 

8  patible  with  the  control  system  developed  under  subpara- 

9  graph  (B).  Such  form  shall  provide  for,  among  other  items — 

10  "(i)  a  summary  description  of  the  conditions  for 

11  excluding  nonimmigrant  visitors  from  the  United  States 

12  under  subsection  (a)  and  this  subsection, 

13  "(ii)  a  description  of  the  conditions  of  entry  with  a 

14  waiver  under  this  subsection,  including  the  limitation  of 

15  such  entry  to  90  days  and  the  consequences  of  failure 

16  to  abide  by  such  conditions,  and 

17  "(iii)  questions  for  the  alien  to  answer  concerning 

18  any  previous  denial  of  the  alien's  application  for  a  visa. 

19  "(D)  An  alien  may  not  be  provided  a  waiver  under  this 

20  subsection  unless  the  alien  has  waived  any  right  (i)  to  review 

21  or  appeal  under  the  Act  of  an  immigration  officer's  determi- 

22  nation  as  to  the  admissibility  of  the  alien  at  the  port  of  entry 

23  into  the  United  States  or  (ii)  to  contest,  other  than  on  the 

24  basis  of  an  application  for  asylum,  any  action  for  deportation 

25  against  the  alien. 

HR  1510  m 


75 


70 

1  "(3)(A)  The  Attorney  General  and  the  Secretary  of 

2  State  acting  jointly  may  designate  up  to  five  countries  as 

3  pUot  countries  for  purposes  of  this  subsection. 

4  "(B)  For  the  period  beginning  after  the  30-day  period 

5  described  in  paragraph  (2)(A)  and  ending  on  the  last  day  of 

6  the  first  fiscal  year  which  begins  after  such  30-day  period,  a 

7  country  may  not  be  designated  as  a  pilot  country  unless  the 

8  sum  of — 

9  "(i)  the  total  number  of  refusals  during  the  fiscal 

10  year  ending  immediately  before  such  30-day  period  of 

11  nonimmigrant  visitor  visas  for  nationals  of  that  coun- 

12  try,  and 

13  "(ii)  the  total  of  the  number  of  nationals  of  that 

14  country  who  were  excluded  ft-om  admission  or  with- 

15  drew  their  apphcation  for  admission  during  such  fiscal 

16  year  as  a  nonimmigrant  visitor, 

17  was  less  than  2.0  percent  of  the  total  number  of  nonimmi- 

18  grant  visitor  visas  for  nationals  of  that  country  which  were 

19  granted  or  reftised  during  such  fiscal  year. 

20  "(C)  For  each  fiscal  year  (within  the  pUot  program 

21  period)  after  the  period  specified  in  subparagraph  (B)— 

22  "(i)  in  the  case  of  a  country  which  was  a  pilot 

23  country  in  the  previous  fiscal  year,  a  country  may  not 

24  be  designated  as  a  pilot  country  unless  the  sum  of— 


HR  1510  m 


76 


71 

1  "(I)  the  total  of  the  number  of  nationals  of 

2  that  country  who  were  excluded  from  admission 

3  or  withdrew  their  application  for  admission  during 

4  such  previous  fiscal  year  as  a  noninunigrant  visi- 

5  tor,  and 

6  "(II)  the  total  number  of  nationals  of  that 

7  country  who  were  admitted  as  nonimmigrant  visi- 

8  tors  during  such  previous  fiscal  year  and  who  vio- 

9  lated  the  terms  of  such  admission, 

10  was  less  than  2.0  percent  of  the  total  number  of  na- 
il tionals  of  that  country  who  applied  for  admission  as 

12  nonimmigrant  visitors  during  such  previous  fiscal  year, 

13  or 

14  "(ii)  in  the  case  of  another  country,  the  country 

15  may  not  be  designated  as  a  pilot  country  unless  the 

16  sum  of — 

17  "(I)  the  total  number  of  refusals  during  the 

18  previous  fiscal  year  of  nonimmigrant  visitor  visas 

19  for  nationals  of  that  country,  and 

20  "(II)  the  total  of  the  number  of  nationals  of 

21  that  country  who  were  excluded  from  admission 

22  or  withdrew  their  appKcation  for  admission  during 

23  such  previous  fiscal  year  as  a  nonimmigrant  visi- 

24  tor, 


HR  1510  m 


77 


72 

1  was  less  than  2.0  percent  of  the  total  number  of  non- 

2  immigrant  visitor  visas  for  nationals  of  that  country 

3  which  were  granted  or  refused  during  such  previous 

4  fiscal  year. 

5  "(4)  The  agreement  referred  to  in  paragraph  (l)(D)(i)  is 

6  an  agreement  between  a  carrier  and  the  Attorney  General 

7  under  which  the  carrier  agrees,  in  consideration  of  the  waiver 

8  of  the  visa  requirement  with  respect  to  a  nonimmigrant  visi- 

9  tor  under  this  subsection — 

10  "(A)  to  mdemnify  the  United  States  against  any 

11  costs    for    the    transportation    of   the    alien   from    the 

12  United  States  if  the  visitor  is  refused  admission  to  the 

13  United  States  or  remains  in  the  United  States  unlaw- 

14  fully  after  the  90-day  period  described  in  paragraph 

15  (l)(A)(i),  and 

16  "(B)  to  submit  daily  to  immigration  officers  any 

17  immigration  forms  received  with  respect  to  nonunmi- 

18  grant  visitors  provided  a  waiver  under  this  subsection. 

19  The  Attorney  General  may  terminate  such  an  agreement 

20  with  five  days'  notice  to  the  carrier  for  the  carrier's  failure  to 

21  meet  the  terms  of  such  agreement. 

22  "(5)  For  purposes  of  this  subsection,  the  term  'pilot  pro- 

23  gram  period'  means  the  period  beginning  at  the  end  of  the 

24  30-day  period  referred  to  in  paragraph  (2)(A)  and  ending  on 


HR  1510  IH 


78 


73 

1  the  last  day  of  the  third  fiscal  year  which  begins  after  such 

2  30-day  period. 

3  "(6)  The  Attorney  General  and  the  Secretary  of  State 

4  shall  jointly  monitor  the  program  and  shall  report  to  the  Con- 

5  gress  not  later  than  two  years  after  the  beginnmg  of  the  pilot 

6  program,  and  shall  include  in  such  report  recommendations 

7  respecting  extension  of  the  pilot  program  period  and  of  the 

8  number  of  countries  that  may  be  designated  under  paragraph 

9  (3)(A). 

10  "(m)  The  requirement  of  paragraph  (26)(B)  of  subsection 

11  (a)  may  be  waived  by  the  Attorney  General,  the  Secretary  of 

12  State,  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  acting  jointly,  in  the 

13  case  of  an  alien  applymg  for  admission  as  a  nonimmigrant 

14  visitor  for  business  or  pleasure  and  solely  for  entry  into  and 

15  stay  on  Guam  for  a  period  not  to  exceed  15  days,  if  the 

16  Attorney  General,  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  the  Secretary 

17  of  the  Interior  jointly  determine  that — 

18  "(1)  the  Territory  of  Guam  has  developed  an  ade- 

19  quate  arrival  and  departure  control  system,  and 

20  "(2)  such  a  waiver  does  not  present  a  threat  to 

21  the  welfare,  safety,  or  security  of  the  United  States.". 

22  (b)  Section  214(a)  (8  U.S.C.   1184(a))  is  amended  by 

23  adding  at  the  end  the  following  new  sentence:  "No  alien  ad- 

24  mitted  to  the  United  States  without  a  visa  pursuant  to  sub- 

25  section  0)  or  (m)  of  section  212  may  be  authorized  to  remain 


79 


74 

1  in  the  United  States  as  a  nonimmigrant  visitor  for  a  period 

2  exceeding  90  days  or  15  days,  respectively,  from  the  date  of 

3  admission,", 

4  (c)  For  amendment  prohibiting  noninmiigrant  visitors 

5  entering  under  visa  waivers  from  adjusting  their  status  to 

6  immigrants,  see  section  212(b)  of  this  Act, 

7  (d)  Section  248  (8  U.S,C.  1258)  is  amended  by  striking 

8  out  "and"  at  the  end  of  paragraph  (2),  by  striking  out  the 

9  period  at  the  end  of  paragraph  (3)  and  inserting  in  lieu  there- 

10  of  ",  and"  and  by  adding  at  the  end  thereof  the  following 

1 1  new  paragraph: 

12  "(4)  an  ahen  admitted  as  a  nonimmigrant  visitor 

13  without  a  visa  under  subsection  0)  or  (m)  of  section 

14  212,". 

15  TITLE  m— LEGALIZATION 

16  LEGALIZATION 

17  Sec.  301.  (a)  Chapter  5  of  title  EC  is  amended  by  insert- 

18  ing  after  section  245  (8  U.S.C.  1255)  the  following  new  sec- 

19  tion: 

20  "adjustment  of  status  of  certain  entrants 

21  before  january  1,  1980,  to  that  of  person  ad- 

22  mitted  for  temporary  or  permanent  residence 

23  "Sec  245A.  (a)  The  Attorney  General  may,  in  his  dis- 

24  cretion  and  under  such  regulations  as  he  shall  prescribe, 


HR  1510  IH 


80 


75 

1  adjust  the  status  of  an  alien  to  that  of  an  aUen  lawfully  ad- 

2  mitted  for  permanent  residence  if — 

3  "(1)  the  alien  applies  for  such  adjustment  during 

4  the  one-year  period  beginning  October  1,  1983, 

5  "(2)(A)  the  alien  (other  than  an  alien  who  entered 

6  as   a  nonimmigrant)   establishes   that   he   entered   the 

7  United  States  prior  to  January  1,  1977,  and  has  re- 

8  sided  continuously  in  the  United  States  in  an  unlawful 

9  status  since  January  1,  1977,  or 

10  "(B)  the  aUen  entered  the  United  States  as  a  non- 
11  immigrant  before  January  1,  1977,  the  alien's  period 

12  of  authorized  stay  as  a  nonimmigrant  expired  before 

13  January  1,  1977,  through  the  passage  of  time  or  the 

14  ahen's  unlawful  status  was  known  to  the  Government 

15  as  of  January  1,  1977,  and  the  aHen  has  resided  con- 

16  tinuously  in  the  United  States  in  an  unlawful  status 

17  since  January  1,  1977;  and 

18  "(C)  in  the  case  of  an  aHen  who  at  any  tune  was 

19  a  nonimmigrant  exchange  alien  (as  defined  in  section 

20  101(a)(15)(J)),  the  ahen  was  not  subject  to  the  two- 

21  year  foreign  residence  requirement  of  section  212(e)  or 

22  has   fulfilled   that   requirement   or  received   a   waiver 

23  thereof;  and 

24  "(3)  the  alien— 


81 


76 

1  "(A)  is  admissible  to  the  United  States  as  an 

2  immigrant,   except   as   otherwise   provided  under 

3  subsection  (c)(3), 

4  "(B)  has  not  been  convicted  of  any  felony  or 

5  of  three  or  more  misdemeanors  committed  in  the 

6  United  States,  and 

7  "(C)  has  not  assisted  in  the  persecution  of 

8  any  person  or  persons  on  account  of  race,  reli- 

9  gion,    nationaHty,    membership    in    a    particular 

10  social  group,  or  political  opinion. 

11  "(b)(1)  The  Attorney  General,   in  his   discretion  and 

12  under  such  regulations  as  he  shall  prescribe,  may  adjust  the 

13  status  of  an  alien  to  that  of  an  alien  lawfully  admitted  for 

14  temporary  residence  if — 

15  "(A)  the  ahen  applies  for  such  adjustment  during 

16  the  one-year  period  beginning  October  1,  1983; 

17  "(B)(i)(D  the  ahen  (other  than  an  alien  who  en- 

18  tered  as  a  nonimmigrant)  establishes  that  he  entered 

19  the  United  States  prior  to  January  1,  1980,  and  has 

20  resided  continuously  in  the  United  States  in  an  unlaw- 

21  ful  status  since  January  1,  1980,  or 

22  "(ID  the  alien  entered  the  United  States  as  a 

23  noninunigrant    before    January    1,    1980,    the    aUen's 

24  period  of  authorized  stay  as  a  nonimmigrant  expired 

25  before  January  1,  1980,  through  the  passage  of  time 

HR  1510  m 


82 


77 

1  or  the  alien's  unlawful  status  was  known  to  the  Gov- 

2  ernment  as  of  January  1,  1980,  and  the  alien  has  re- 

3  sided  continuously  in  the  United  States  in  an  unlawful 

4  status  since  January  1,  1980;  and 

5  "(ni)  in  the  case  of  an  alien  who  at  any  time  was 

6  a  nonimmigrant  exchange  alien  (as  defined  in  section 

7  101(a)(15)(J)),  the  alien  was  not  subject  to  the  two- 

8  year  foreign  residence  requirement  of  section  212(e)  or 

9  has   fulfilled   that   requirement   or   received   a   waiver 

10  thereof;  or 

11  "(ii)  the  alien  is — 

12  "(I)  a  national  of  Cuba  who  arrived  in  the 

13  United  States  and  presented  himself  for  inspection 

14  after  April  20,  1980,  and  before  January  1,  1981, 

15  and  who  is  still  physically  present  in  the  United 

16  States; 

17  "(n)  a  national  of  Haiti  who  on  December 

18  31,  1980,  was  the  subject  of  exclusion  or  deporta- 

19  tion  proceedings  under  section  236  or  section  242 

20  of  the  Immigration  and  Nationality  Act,  including 

21  a  national  of  Haiti  who  on  that  date  was  under  an 

22  order  of  exclusion  and  deportation  or  under  an 

23  order  of  deportation  which  had  not  yet  been  ex- 

24  ecuted; 


HR  1510  IH 


83 


78 

1  "(m)  a  national  of  Haiti  who  was  paroled 

2  into  the  United  States  under  section  212(d)(5)  of 

3  such   Act    or   was    granted   voluntary    departure 

4  before  December  31,   1980,  and  was  physically 

5  present  in  the  United  States  on  that  date;  or 

6  "(IV)  a  national  of  Cuba  or  Haiti  who  on 

7  December    31,    1980,    had    an    application    for 

8  asylum  pending  with  the  Lnmigration  and  Natu- 

9  ralization  Service;  and 

10  "(C)  the  alien— 

11  "(i)  is  admissible  to  the  United  States  as  an 

12  immigrant,    except   as   otherwise   provided  under 

13  subsection  (c)(3), 

14  "(ii)  has  not  been  convicted  of  any  felony  or 

15  three   or   more   misdemeanors   committed  in   the 

16  United  States,  and 

17  "(iii)  has  not  assisted  in  the  persecution  of 

18  any  person  or  persons  on  account  of  race,  reli- 

19  gion,    nationality,    membership    in    a    particular 

20  social  group,  or  political  opinion. 

21  "(2)  In  the  case  of  an  alien  during  the  period  he  is 

22  granted  lawful  temporary  resident  status  under  paragraph 

23  (D— 

24  "(A)  the  Attorney  General  shall,  in  accordance 

25  with  regulations,   permit   the   alien   to   return   to   the 

HR  1510  m 


84 


79 

1  United  States  after  such  brief  and  casual  trips  abroad 

2  as  reflect  an  intention  on  the  part  of  the  alien  to  adjust 

3  to  lawful  permanent  resident  status  under  paragraph 

4  (3),  and 

5  "(B)  the  Attorney  General  shall  grant  the  alien 

6  authorization  to  engage  in  emplojonent  in  the  United 

7  States  and  provide  to  that  alien  an  'employment  au- 

8  thorized'     endorsement    or    other    appropriate    work 

9  permit. 

10  "(3)  The  Attorney  General,  in  his  discretion  and  under 

11  such  regulations  as  he  may  prescribe,  may  adjust  the  status 

12  of  any  alien  provided  lawful  temporary  resident  status  under 

13  paragraph  (1)  to  that  of  an  alien  lawfully  admitted  for  perma- 

14  nent  residence  if  the  ahen — 

15  "(A)  applies  for  such  adjustment  during  the  six- 

16  month  period  beginning  with  the  thirty-seventh  month 

17  that  begins  after  the  date  the  alien  was  granted  such 

18  temporary  resident  status; 

19  "(B)  estabUshes  that  he  has  continuously  resided 

20  in   the   United   States   since   the   date   the   alien  was 

21  granted  such  temporary  resident  status; 

22  "(C)(i)  is  admissible  to  the  United  States  as  an 

23  immigrant,  except  as  otherwise  provided  under  subsec- 

24  tion  (c)(3),  and 


HR  1510  IH 


85 


80 

1  "(ii)  has  not  been  convicted  of  any  felony  or  three 

2  or  more  misdemeanors  conunitted  in  the  United  States; 

3  and 

4  "(D)  can  demonstrate  that  he  either  (i)  meets  the 

5  requirement  of  paragraph  (1)  of  section  312  (relating  to 

6  minimal  understanding  of  ordinary  English),  or  (ii)  is 

7  satisfactorily  pursuing  a  course  of  study  (recognized  by 

8  the  Attorney  General)  to  achieve  such  an  understand- 

9  ing  of  English. 

10  "(4)  The  Attorney  General  shall  provide  for  the  rescis- 

11  sion  of  temporary  resident  status  granted  an  alien  under  this 

12  subsection — 

13  "(A)  if  it  appears  to  the  Attorney  General  that 

14  the  alien  was  in  fact  not  eligible  for  such  status, 

15  "(B)  if  the  aUen  commits  an  act  that  (i)  makes  the 

16  alien  inadmissible  to  the  United  States  as  an  unmi- 

17  grant,  except  as  otherwise  provided  under  subsection 

18  (c)(3),  or  (ii)  is  convicted  of  any  felony  or  three  or  more 

19  misdemeanors  committed  in  the  United  States,  or 

20  "(C)  at  the  end  of  the  forty-third  month  beginning 

21  after  the  date  the  alien  is  granted  such  status,  unless 

22  the  alien  has  filed  an  application  for  adjustment  of  such 

23  status  pursuant  to  paragraph  (3)  and  such  application 

24  has  not  been  denied. 


HR  1510  m 


86 


81 

1  "(c)(1)  The  Attorney  General  shall  provide  that  applica- 

2  tions  for  adjustment  of  status  under  subsection  (a)  and  sub- 

3  section  (b)(1)  may  be  made  to  and  received,  on  behalf  of  the 

4  Attorney  General,  by  qualified  voluntary  agencies,  which 

5  have  been  designated  for  such  purpose  by  the  Attorney  Gen- 

6  eral. 

7  "(2)  The  numerical  limitations  of  sections  201  and  202 

8  shall  not  apply  to  the  adjustment  of  aliens  to  lawful  perma- 

9  nent  resident  status  under  this  section, 

10  "(3)  The  provisions  of  paragraph  (14),  (20),  (21),  (25), 

11  and  (32)  of  section  212(a)  shall  not  be  applicable  in  the  deter- 

12  mination    of    an    alien's    admissibihty    under    subsections 

13  (a)(3)(A),  (b)(l)(C)(i),  (b)(3)(C)(i),  and  (b)(4)(A)(i),  and  the  At- 

14  tomey  General,  in  making  such  determination,  may  waive 

15  any  other  provision  of  such  section  other  than  paragraph  (9), 

16  (10),  (23)  (except  for  so  much  of  such  paragraph  as  relates  to 

17  a  single  offense  of  simple  possession  of  30  grams  or  less  of 

18  marihuana),  (27),  (28),  (29),  or  (33)  ^vith  respect  to  the  alien 

19  involved  for  humanitarian  purposes,  to  assure  family  unity,  or 

20  when  it  is  otherwise  m  the  public  interest. 

21  "(4)  During  the  six-month  period  beginning  on  the  date 

22  of  the  enactment  of  this  section,  the  Attorney  General,  in 

23  cooperation   with   qualified   voluntary    agencies    designated 

24  under  paragraph  (1),  shall  broadly  disseminate  information 


87 


82 

1  respecting  the  benefits  which  aliens  may  receive  under  this 

2  section  and  the  requirements  to  obtain  such  benefits. 

3  "(5)  Notwithstanding  any  other  provision  of  law,  the 

4  Attorney  General  shall  first  issue,  on  an  interim  or  other 

5  basis  and  before  October  1,  1983,  such  regulations  as  are 

6  necessary  to  implement  this  section  on  a  timely  basis. 

7  "(6)  The  Attorney  General  shall  provide  that  in  the  case 

8  of  an  alien  who  is  apprehended  before  October  1,  1983,  and 

9  who  can  establish  a  prima  facie  case  of  eligibility  to  have  his 

10  status  adjusted  under  subsection  (a)  or  (b)(1)  (but  for  the  fact 

11  that  he  may  not  apply  for  such  adjustment  until  October  1, 

12  1983)  may  not  be  deported  or  excluded  until  he  has  had  a 

13  reasonable  opportunity  to  file  an  application  for  such  adjust- 

14  ment. 

15  "(d)(1)  During  the  period  an  alien  is  in  lawful  temporary 

16  resident  status  granted  under  subsection  (b)(1)  and  during  the 

17  three-year  period  beginning  on  the  date  an  alien  is  granted 

18  lawful  permanent  resident  status  under  subsection  (a)  or 

19  (b)(3),  and  notwithstanding  any  other  provision  of  law — 

20  "(A)   except   as   provided  in   paragraph   (2),    the 

21  alien  is  not  eligible  for — 

22  "(i)  any  program  of  financial  assistance  fur- 

23  nished  under  Federal  law  (whether  through  grant, 

24  loan,  guarantee,  or  otherwise)  on  the  basis  of  fi- 

25  nancial  need,  as  such  programs  are  identified  by 

HR  1510  m 


88 

I 

83 

1  the  Attorney  General  in  consultation  with  other 

2  appropriate  heads  of  the  various  departments  and 

3  agencies  of  Government, 

4  "(ii)  medical  assistance  under  a  State  plan 

5  approved  under  title  XIX  of  the  Social  Security 

6  Act,  and 

7  "(iii)  assistance  under  the  Food  Stamp  Act  of 

8  1977,  and 

9  "(B)  a  State  or  poHtical  subdivision  therein  may, 

10  to  the  extent  consistent  with  subparagraph  (A),  provide 

11  that  the  alien  is  not  eligible  for  the  programs  of  finan- 

12  cial  or  medical  assistance  furnished  under  the  law  of 

13  that  State  or  political  subdivision. 

14  "(2)  Paragraph  (1)  shall  not  apply — 

15  "(A)     to     an     aUen     described     in     subsection 

16  (b)(l)(B)(ii)  (relatmg  to  certam  Cuban  and  Haitian  en- 

17  trants), 

18  "(B)  in  the  case  of  assistance  provided  to  aliens 

19  who  are  determined  (in  accordance  with  regulations 

20  prescribed  by   the   Attorney   General   in   consultation 

21  with  the  Secretary  of  Health  and  Human  Services)  to 

22  require  such  assistance  because  of  age  (in  the  case  of 

23  aliens  65  years  of  age  or  older),  blindness,  or  disability, 

24  and 


89 


84 

1  "(C)  in  the  case  of  medical  assistance  provided  to 

2  aliens  who  are  determined  (in  accordance  with  regula- 

3  tions  prescribed  by  the  Attorney  General  in  consulta- 

4  tion  with  the  Secretary  of  Health  and  Human  Serv- 

5  ices)  to  require  such  assistance  in  the  interest  of  public 

6  health  or  because  of  serious  illness  or  injury. 

7  "(3)  For  the  piu-pose  of  section  501  of  the  Refugee  Edu- 

8  cation  Assistance  Act  of  1980  (Public  Law  96-422),  assist- 

9  ance  shall  be  continued  under  such  section  with  respect  to  an 

10  alien  without  regard  to  the  aUen's  adjustment  of  status  under 

11  this  section. 

12  "(e)  The  Attorney  General,  after  consultation  with  the 

13  Committees  on  the  Judiciary  of  the  House  of  Representatives 

14  and  the  Senate  and  with  qualified  voluntary  agencies  desig- 

15  nated  pursuant  to  subsection  (c)(1),  shall  prescribe  regulations 

16  estabhshing  a  definition  of  the  term  'resided  contmuously',  as 

17  used  in  this  section,  and  for  establishing  the  requirements 

18  necessary  to  prove  eligibility  for  immigration  benefits  under 

19  this  section.   Such  regulations  may  be  prescribed  to  take 

20  effect  on  an  interim  basis  if  the  Attorney  General  determines 

21  that  this  is  necessary  in  order  to  implement  this  section  in  a 

22  timely  maimer. 

23  "(0  In  order  to  carry  out  this  section  (including  the 

24  making  of  arrangements  with  qualified  voluntary  agencies 

25  under  subsection  (c)(1)  and  the  dissemination  of  information 


18-556    O— 83- 


90 

85 

1  under  subsection  (c)(3))  there  are  authorized  to  be  appropri- 

2  ated  $10,000,000  for  fiscal  year  1984.". 

3  (b)  The  table  of  contents  for  chapter  5  of  title  11  is 

4  amended  by  inserting  after  the  item  relating  to  section  245 

5  the  following  new  item: 

"Sec.  245A.  Adjustment  of  status  of  certain  entrants  before  January  1,  1980,  to 
that  of  person  admitted  for  temporary  or  permanent  residence.". 

6  (c)  The  President  shall  transmit  to  Congress,  not  later 

7  than  18  months  after  the  date  of  the  enactment  of  this  Act,  a 

8  report  on  the  impact  of  the  enactment  of  the  legalization  pro- 

9  gram  described  in  section  245A  of  the  Immigration  and  Na- 

10  tionality  Act,  including  such  impact  on  State  and  local  gov- 

1 1  ernments  in  the  different  regions  of  the  United  States. 

12  (d)(1)  Public  Law  89-732  (approved  November  2,  1966) 

13  is  repealed. 

14  (2)  The  repeal  made  by  paragraph  (1)  shall  not  apply  to 

15  a  native  or  citizen  of  Cuba  who  has  been  inspected  and  ad- 

16  mitted  or  paroled  into  the  United  States  before  April  21, 

17  1980. 

18  UPDATING  EEGISTEY  DATE  TO  JANUAEY  1,   1973 

19  Sec.  302.  (a)  Section  249  (8  U.S.C.  1259)  is  amend- 

20  ed— 

21  (1)  by  striking  out  "june  30,  1948"  in  the  head- 

22  ing  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  "januaey  i,  197  3", 

23  and 


91 


86 

1  (2)  by  striking  out  "June  30,  1948"  in  paragraph 

2  (a)  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  "January  1,  1973". 

3  (b)  The  item  in  the  table  of  contents  relating  to  section 

4  249  is  amended  by  striking  out — 

"June  30,  1948", 

5  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof — 

"January  1,  1973". 

6  STATE  LEGALIZATION  ASSISTANCE 

7  Sec.  303.  (a)  There  are  authorized  to  be  appropriated  to 

8  carry  out  subsections  (b)  and  (c)  of  this  section  such  sums  as 

9  may  be  necessary  for  fiscal  year  1984  and  for  each  of  the 

10  three  succeeding  fiscal  years. 

11  (b)(1)  Subject  to  the  amounts  provided  in  advance  in  ap- 

12  propriation  Acts,  the  Secretary  of  Health  and  Human  Serv- 

13  ices  shall  provide  reunbursement  to  each  State  (as  defined  in 

14  paragraph  (2)(A))  for  100  percent  of  the  costs  of  programs  of 

15  public  assistance  (as  defined  in  paragraph  (2)(B))  provided  to 

16  any  eligible  legaHzed  alien  (as  defined  in  paragraph  (2)(C)). 

17  (2)  For  purposes  of  this  subsection: 

18  (A)  The  term  "State"  has  the  meamng  given  such 

19  term  in  section  101(a)(36)  of  the  Immigration  and  Na- 

20  tionality  Act  (8  U.S.C.  1101(a)(36)). 

21  (B)   The   term   "programs   of  public   assistance" 

22  means  programs  existing  in  a  State  or  local  jurisdiction 

23  which— 


92 


87 

1  (i)  provide  for  cash,  medical,  or  other  assist- 

2  ance  designed  to  meet  the  basic  subsistence  or 

3  health  needs  of  individuals  or  required  in  the  in- 

4  terest  of  public  health, 

5  (ii)  are  generally  available  to  needy  individ- 

6  uals  residing  in  the  State  or  locality,  and 

7  (iii)  receive  funding  from  units  of  State  or 

8  local  government. 

9  (C)  The  term  "eligible  legalized  alien"  means — 

10  (i)  an  alien  who  has  been  granted  permanent 

11  resident  status  under  section  245A(a)  of  the  Im- 

12  migration  and  Nationality  Act,  but  only  until  the 

13  end  of  the  three-year  period  beginning  on  the  date 

14  the  alien  was  granted  such  status;  and 

15  (ii)  an  alien  who  has  been  granted  temporary 

16  resident  status  under  section  245A(b)(l)  of  such 

17  Act,  but  only  until — 

18  (I)    such   temporary   resident    status    is 

19  terminated,  or 

20  (H)  if  the  alien  has  been  subsequently 

21  granted  permanent  resident  status  under  sec- 

22  tion  245A(b)(3)  of  such  Act,  until  the  end  of 

23  the  three-year  period  beginning  on  the  date 

24  such  permanent  resident  status  was  granted, 

25  whichever  is  later. 


93 

88 


1  (c)(1)  Subject  to  the  amounts  provided  in  advance  in  ap- 

2  propriation  Acts  and  in  accordance  with  this  section,  the  Sec- 

3  retary  of  Education  shall  make  payments  to  State  education- 

4  al  agencies  for  the  purpose  of  assisting  local  educational 

5  agencies  of  that  State  in  providing  educational  services  for 

6  eligible  legaUzed  aUens  (as  defined  in  paragraph  (3)(B)). 

7  (2)  The  amount  of  the  payment  to  a  State  educational 

8  agency  under  this  subsection  for  a  fiscal  year  shall  be  based 

9  on  the  number  of  eligible  legalized  ahens  (as  defined  in  para- 

10  graph  (3)(B))  are  enrolled  in  elementary  and  secondary  public 

11  schools    under    the   jurisdiction    of    each   local    educational 

12  agency  within  that  State. 

13  (3)  For  purposes  of  this  subsection: 

14  (A)  The  terms  "elementary  school",  "local  educa- 

15  tional    agency",    "secondary    school",    "State",    and 

16  "State  educational  agency"  have  the  meanings  given 

17  such  terms  under  section  198(a)  of  the  Elementary  and 

18  Secondary  Education  Act  of  1965. 

19  (B)  The  term  "eligible  legahzed  ahen"  means  an 

20  aUen  who  either  has  been  granted  permanent  resident 

21  status  under  section  245 A(a)  of  the  Immigration  and 

22  Nationahty  Act  or  has  been  granted  temporary  resident 

23  status  under  section  245A(b)(l)  of  such  Act,  but  only 

24  until  the  end  of  the  three-year  period  beginmng  on  the 

25  date  the  aUen  was  granted  such  status. 

O 


94 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  also  ask  unanimous  consent  to  insert  certain  edi- 
torial materials  in  the  record.  And  without  objection,  that  will  be 
so  ordered. 

[The  document  follows:] 

[Editorial  from  the  New  York  Times,  Feb.  21,  1983] 

Time  To  Turn  the  Illegal  Tide 

Mr.  Immigration,  they  call  him  in  Washington  and  for  good  reason.  Repeatedly, 
Peter  Rodino,  Chairman  of  the  House  Judiciary  Committee,  has  been  a  man  ahead 
of  his  time.  He  was  instrumental  in  enacting  the  1965  law  undoing  the  odious  na- 
tional origins  quota  system.  In  the  early  70's,  he  recognized,  long  before  others,  that 
further  reform  depended  on  making  it  illegal  for  employers  to  hire  illegal  immi- 
grants. Twice,  he  managed  to  get  the  House  to  enact  such  sanctions. 

But  his  efforts  were  repeatedly  stymied  in  the  Senate — until  last  year.  With  bi- 
partisan support,  a  balanced  bill  including  employer  sanctions  passed  the  Senate 
overwhelmingly;  this  time  around,  it  died  in  the  House.  Now  there's  a  second 
chance.  The  Simpson-Mazzoli  reform  bill  was  re-introduced  in  both  houses  last 
week.  If  it  is  to  succeed,  speed  is  essential  and  that  means  the  man  of  the  hour  is 
Mr.  Immigration. 

There's  procedural  reason  for  speed.  In  a  season  of  budget  turmoil  and  storm  over 
Social  Security,  immigration  becomes  a  discretionary  topic,  dispensable  when,  late 
in  a  session,  time  becomes  an  enemy.  That  will  be  all  the  more  true  this  year  as 
Presidential  candidates  try  to  sidestep  the  complexity  and  passion  of  the  issue. 

There's  another  reason  for  speed:  need.  The  reform  bill  aims  to  give  the  country 
control  of  its  borders.  Such  control  has  never  been  more  desirable.  The  tide  of  illegal 
immigrants  is  high,  and  rising.  No  one  knows  exactly  how  many  stream  into  the 
United  States.  The  Immigration  Service  says  it  catches  a  million  a  year  and  guesses 
that  a  half  million  more  slip  past.  Other  authorities  guess  more,  but  accept  the 
Service's  guess:  that  means  nearly  500,000  more  illegals  have  made  it  in  just  since 
the  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill  was  first  introduced. 

According  to  arithmetic,  that  means  a  flow  of  1,500  a  day  during  the  past  year. 
According  to  logic,  the  flow  must  be  considerably  greater.  Economic  magnetism  has 
always  pulled  migrants,  legal  and  illegal,  across  the  border;  the  pull  must  now  be 
nearly  irresistible. 

Our  recession  notwithstanding,  consider  economic  conditions  elsewhere  in  the 
hemisphere.  Mexico  is  a  leading  example.  On  the  day  the  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill  was 
introduced  last  year,  it  took  45  pesos  to  buy  a  dollar;  today  it  takes  154.  Elsewhere 
in  Central  and  South  America,  economic  distress  is  compounded  by  violence  and  po- 
litical instability.  And  what  about  the  rest  of  the  world? 

For  reasons  of  vitality,  humanity  and  history,  America  wants  and  needs  immi- 
grants. What  it  does  not  need  is  such  an  uncontrollable  flood  of  illegal  migrants 
that  it  tries  public  patience  and  foments  a  backlash  against  all  newcomers.  That's 
the  genuine  danger  and  the  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill  is  the  bipartisan  remedy. 

Senator  Simpson  hopes  the  Senate  will  re-enact  the  bill  within  weeks.  The  House 
could  hang  back  again,  waiting.  But  if  it  keeps  pace — something  Chairman  Rodino 
can  do  much  about— the  reform  bill  could  be  law  by  summer.  Mr.  Immigration  was 
a  man  ahead  of  his  time;  now  the  moment  is  his. 


[Editorial  from  the  Boston  Globe,  Dec.  29,  1982] 

The  Best  Versus  the  Good 

The  immigration  bill  that  died  with  the  adjournment  of  Congress  was  always  an 
uneasy  compromise. 

It  represented  an  effort  to  reconcile  two  different  aspirations.  One  was  the  hu- 
manitarian impulse  to  regularize  the  legal  status  of  perhaps  six  million  illegal  im- 
migrants. The  other  was  the  desire  to  discourage  severely  any  further  illegal  immi- 
gration. 

The  restrictionists  accepted  amnesty  for  the  existing  illegal  immigrants.  In  return 
they  obtained  a  provision  in  the  bill  making  employers  criminally  liable  for  hiring 
aliens  who  lack  proper  documents.  The  reasoning  was  that  if  employers  feared  seri- 
ous punishment  they  would  refuse  to  hire  illegal  aliens.  If  the  aliens  could  not  get 
work,  they  would  send  this  word  back  on  the  grapevine  to  relatives  and  friends  in 
their  native  country,  and  soon  the  flow  of  illegal  immigrants  would  cease. 


95 

This  compromise  passed  overwhelmingly  in  the  Senate,  but  in  the  House  it  began 
to  come  unravelled.  It  was  finally  abandoned  after  two  nights  of  stormy  debate 
without  being  brought  to  a  final  vote. 

The  difficulty  was  that  many  businessmen,  farmers,  and  ranchers  in  Texas  and 
California  who  hire  Mexican  immigrants  do  not  want  the  legal  burden  of  checking 
the  visa  and  citizenship  papers  of  their  low-paid  employees.  Their  opposition  weak- 
ened support  for  the  compromise  among  Republicans  and  conservative  Democrats. 

At  the  same  time  Hispanic-American  members  and  their  black  allies  raise  the  cry 
that  the  bill  was  discriminatory  because  it  would  tend  to  make  it  more  difficult  for 
persons  with  Spanish  names  to  find  jobs.  Employers,  it  was  argued,  would  hire 
others  rather  than  take  the  risk  that  a  Hispanic  employee  might  turn  out  to  be  an 
illegal  alien. 

The  Hispanic  bloc  which  has  demonstrated  increasing  political  clout  in  recent 
elections  also  realistically  calculated  that  if  it  could  stall  this  bill,  it  might  be  able 
under  the  next  liberal  Democratic  President  to  get  a  bill  passed  that  conferred  am- 
nesty without  the  economic  penalty  clauses. 

The  bill  deserved  a  better  fate.  There  is  no  ideal  solution  to  their  complex  prob- 
lem. With  the  country  suffering  serious  unemplo5mient  there  is  no  justification  for 
allowing  the  entry  of  additional  millions  of  illegal  immigrants.  Yet  the  United 
States  would  have  to  erect  the  equivalent  of  the  Berlin  Wall  along  the  Rio  Grande 
to  keep  out  all  the  Mexican  laborers  who  would  like  to  enter  this  country.  A  credi- 
ble penalty  on  those  who  employ  illegal  aliens  is  the  only  solution  offering  any  plau- 
sible hope  of  deterring  illegal  immigration. 

That  this  deterrent  be  coupled  with  an  amnesty  for  those  already  here  makes 
sense.  It  would  offend  the  nation's  conscience  to  try  to  deport  millions  of  people, 
some  of  whom  have  lived  here  for  many  years  and  have  American  born  children.  As 
Rep.  Romano  L.  Mazzoli,  the  Kentucky  Democrat  who  was  the  bill's  sponsor  sadly 
observed,  the  search  for  perfection  leads  nowhere.  On  this  problem  as  on  others  the 
best  IS  the  enemy  of  the  good. 


[Editorial  from  the  Los  Angeles  Times,  Dec.  27,  1982] 

Making  a  Good  Job  Better 

With  the  withdrawal  of  the  Immigration  Reform  and  Control  Act  of  1982  from 
consideration  by  the  House  of  Representatives,  all  chance  of  changing  U.S.  immigra- 
tion laws  during  the  97th  Congress  was  lost.  It's  now  up  to  the  next  Congress,  which 
may  even  be  able  to  improve  on  the  fine  work  done  by  the  co-authors  of  the  bill. 
Sen.  Alan  K.  Simpson  (R-Wyo.)  and  Rep.  Romano  L.  Mazzoli  (D-Ky.). 

Simpson  and  Mazzoli  are  the  chairmen  of  the  immigration  subcommittees  in  the 
Senate  and  House,  respectively,  and  they  are  expected  to  retain  those  posts  when 
the  new  Congress  convenes.  Both  have  indicated  that  they  will  reintroduce  their 
bill,  which  represented  almost  four  years  of  research  into  a  complicated  and  emo- 
tional issue.  Another  hopeful  sign  is  the  expressed  intention  of  several  opponents  of 
the  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill,  including  Rep.  Edward  R.  Roybal  (D-Los  Angeles),  to  try  to 
improve  it  the  next  time  around  rather  than  working  to  obstruct  it. 

Immigration,  especially  illegal  immigration,  has  been  perceived  by  the  general 
public  as  a  problem  for  almost  10  years.  But  Congress  and  four  different  Adminis- 
trations were  unable  to  change  the  laws  regulating  it  because  there  was  no  consen- 
sus on  what  should  be  done.  The  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill  came  closer  to  enactment 
than  any  of  the  proposals  that  preceded  it  because  it  was  a  compromise  measure 
that  tried  to  balance  restrictionism  with  humanitarian  concern  for  immigrants 
living  in  this  country  illegally.  Even  its  authors  conceded  that  it  was  not  perfect, 
but  that  did  not  stop  members  of  Congress  who  wanted  to  weaken  it,  or  to  make  it 
tougher,  from  delaying  the  bill  until  it  became  impossible  for  Congress  to  enact  it 
before  adjournment. 

Now  that  Simpson  and  Mazzoli  will  have  a  chance  to  refine  their  bill  even  fur- 
ther, they  should  make  several  changes  that  could  help  it  win  enactment  next  year. 

"They  should  include  budget  appropriations  to  pay  for  the  many  reforms  envi- 
sioned by  the  act.  ITie  most  effective  criticism  of  the  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill,  in  our 
view,  was  that  it  included  no  money  for  the  Federal  agencies  that  would  have  been 
charged  with  carrying  out  its  mandates,  and  no  financial  assistance  for  the  local 
governments  that  might  have  been  affected  by  them.  While  it  established  sanctions 
against  employers  who  hired  illegal  immigrants,  for  example,  it  included  no  money 
to  pay  for  a  counterfeit-proof  Social  Security  card  that  would  make  it  easier  to  en- 
force such,  sanctions  in  a  non-discriminatory  fashion.  And,  while  it  called  for  more 


96 

effective  border  control,  it  provided  no  more  money  for  the  overworked  U.S.  Border 
Patrol  and  its  parent  body,  the  U.S.  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service. 

The  next  version  of  the  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill  should  include  a  simpler  and  more 
generous  legalization  program  for  illegal  immigrants  willing  to  come  out  of  hiding. 
The  1982  bill  had  a  somewhat  complicated  amnesty  program,  with  a  legalization 
date  of  1977  for  some  immigrants  and  1980  for  others.  It  would  be  easier  to  have  one 
comprehensive  program  covering  all  illegal  immigrants,  with  a  single  legalization 
date— preferably  1980. 

The  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill  sought  also  to  limit  legal  immigration  to  this  country.  In 
next  year's  bill,  some  effort  must  be  made  to  maintain  some  of  the  more  generous 
features  of  current  U.S.  immigration  law,  particularly  provisions  that  permit  family 
reunification.  Some  account  must  also  be  taken  of  the  traditionally  close  ties  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  its  two  closest  neighbors,  Canada  and  Mexico,  by  allow- 
ing higher  levels  of  legal  immigration  from  both  countries. 

Congress  should  be  careful  that,  in  its  zeal  to  control  illegal  immigration,  it  does 
not  enact  laws  that  would  limit  the  civil  rights  of  both  U.S.  citizens  and  foreigners. 
Civil  libertarians  properly  expressed  concern  over  sections  of  the  Simpson-Mazzoli 
bill  that  would  have  given  local  police  more  authority  to  arrest  and  detain  suspected 
illegal  aliens— a  responsibility  that  the  courts  have  long  held  belongs  to  Federal 
agents,  where  it  should  stay.  There  was  also  significant  opposition  to  provisions  in 
the  1982  bill  that  would  have  made  it  harder  for  foreigners  to  seek  political  asylum 
in  the  United  States. 

Finally,  Congress  will  be  remiss  if,  in  enacting  domestic  reforms  to  control  immi- 
gration, it  does  not  take  account  of  the  root  cause  of  that  phenomenon— economic 
underdevelopment  in  the  Third  World.  Though  the  97th  Congress  did  not  enact  im- 
migration reform,  it  did  pass  part  of  the  Caribbean  basin  initiative  proposed  by 
President  Reagan.  That  initiative,  which  is  designed  to  help  end  political  unrest  in 
the  Caribbean  and  Central  America  by  promoting  economic  development  there, 
could  have  as  much  effect  in  slowing  illegal  immigration  to  this  country  as  anything 
in  the  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill,  if  its  premise  is  pursued  and  expanded  on.  While  many 
immigrants  come  to  this  country  because  they  want  to  become  Americans,  the  ma- 
jority are  lured  here  by  more  basic  things.  Most  often  they  want  more  jobs  and 
higher  wages  than  can  be  found  in  their  homelands.  In  the  long  run,  the  most  effec- 
tive way  to  limit  the  number  of  foreigners  coming  to  the  United  States  is  to  niake 
sure  that  other  countries  offer  their  energetic  and  ambitious  citizens  the  same  kinds 
of  opportunities  that  this  nation  has  traditionally  offered. 

As  part  of  a  recent  series  of  articles  about  immigration.  Times  staff  writer  Barry 
Siegel  interviewed  several  prominent  historians  who  made  a  point  that  is  worth 
keeping  in  mind  while  pondering  what  the  United  States  should  do  about  future  im- 
migration. The  historians  almost  unanimously  agreed  that,  despite  the  widespread 
concern  about  present-day  immigration,  there  is  no  need  to  panic.  The  United 
States  has  faced  similar  influxes  in  the  past,  and  has  invariably  come  through  as  a 
richer,  stronger  nation.  In  the  end,  America  changes  the  immigrants  more  than 
they  change  America. 

That  view  is  an  argument  for  the  balanced  and  generous  immigration  reforms 
that  we  would  like  to  see  enacted.  It  is  not,  however,  an  excuse  for  inaction.  There 
are  still  problems  associated  with  this  nation's  immigration  system— or  non-system, 
considering  how  easily  and  often  it  is  circumvented— and  these  problems  must  be 

U.S.  immigration  laws  are  outdated  and  complicated.  The  agency  that  administers 
them  is  badly  in  need  of  reorganization  and  modernization.  Above  all,  too  many  il- 
legal immigrants  are  subject  to  exploitation  under  the  current  laws,  not  just  by  un- 
scrupulous employers  but  also  by  slum  landlords,  phony  immigration  counselors  and 
criminals  of  all  sorts.  No  well-intentioned  person  could  want  this  system  to  continue 
operating  as  it  has  for  so  long. 

Despite  its  imperfections,  the  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill  was  a  sincere  effort  to  address 
those  problems  in  a  humane  and  balanced  way.  That  is  why  we  supported  it,  and 
that  is  why  we  urge  Congress  to  try  to  enact  similar  legislation  when  it  reconvenes 
next  year. 


97 

[Editorial  from  the  San  Diego  Union,  Dec.  23,  1982] 

Immigration  Reform 

The  House  of  Representatives  failed  the  American  people  in  numerous  ways 
during  the  last  session,  but  the  costliest  failure  perhaps  was  its  refusal  to  enact  the 
Simpson-Mazzoli  immigration  reform  bill. 

House  Speaker  Thomas  P.  "Tip"  O'Neill  bears  heavy  responsibility  for  this.  Being 
nothing  if  not  parochial  and  from  Massachusetts,  which  is  far  removed  form  the  il- 
legal alien  problem,  Mr.  O'Neill  shoved  immigration  reform  aside  at  the  behest  of 
self-serving  special  interest  groups.  ^    iu 

The  principal  opposition  came  from  an  incongruous  union  of  three  disparate  lob- 
bies: Organized  labor,  which  alleged  the  bill  would  admit  too  many  aliens  to  com- 
pete with  U.S.  workers;  growers,  and  other  employers  who  feared  the  bill  would  dry 
up  their  traditional  source  of  short-term  and  low-paid  labor;  and  Latinos,  who  like 
things  the  way  they  are  and  see  possible  harm  in  any  immigration  reform.  One  of 
the  most  potent  opponents  was  the  U.S.  Chamber  of  Commerce,  which  ignored  an 
obvious  national  problem  of  the  first  magnitude  in  favor  of  the  narrow  interests  of 
its  employer  members. 

Speaker  O'Neill  said  he  was  "not  enamored  of  the  bill,"  and  that  was  that.  Never 
mind  that  the  Senate  passed  it  by  a  lopsided  majority  of  80  to  19.  Never  mmd  that 
it  was  the  first  major  rewrite  of  immigration  laws  in  30  years.  Never  mind  that  the 
Simpson-Mazzoli  reform  was  the  product  of  two  years  of  study  by  the  Select  Com- 
mission on  Immigration  and  Refugee  Policy  and  two  more  years  of  hearings  by  the 
House  and  Senate. 

The  complex  process  to  enact  immigration  reform  legislation  must  commence  all 
over  again  next  year.  And  the  delay  is  likely  to  compound  the  difficulties.  Some  pre- 
dict any  substitute  for  the  intricately  balanced  compromises  in  Simpson-Mazzoli  will 
be  harsher,  more  restrictive.  Others  fear  that  Simpson-Mazzoli  may  represent  the 
high-water  mark  of  immigration  reform— that  opposition  will  grow  stronger  and 
defeat  all  attempts  at  changing  the  status  of  illegal  aliens.  Obviously,  no  reform  can 
be  meaningful  if  it  exempts  objections  of  every  special  interest.  ,    o    •  u 

Immigration  reform  there  must  be.  As  Attorney  General  William  French  bmith 
has  warned,  "We  have  lost  control  of  our  borders,"  which  no  sovereign  nation  can 
countenance.  Moreover,  beyond  controlling  the  flow  of  millions  of  persons  into  this 
country,  the  3.5  to  6  million  aliens  already  here  must  be  protected  from  exploita- 
tion The  only  way  to  do  this  is  to  bestow  legitimacy  upon  them  through  amnesty 
and  citizenship  as  provided  by  the  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill.  The  purpose  is  simply  to 
bring  some  order  to  disordered  U.S.  immigration,  which  is  likely  to  become  even 
worse  with  Latin  America's  severe  economic  problems. 

Immigration  reform  is  too  desperately  needed  to  become  hostage  to  special  inter- 
est groups  in  the  United  States  or  to  official  opposition  from  Mexico  that  is  based  on 
misunderstanding  or  deliberate  misinterpretation. 


[Editorial  from  the  Washington  Post,  Dec.  21,  1982] 

The  Lame-Duck  Session  .  .  .  Worst  of  All 

Congress  walked  away  from  immigration  reform  in  its  final  days.  It  was  a  tough 
issue,  and  there  were  powerful  forces  at  both  ends  of  the  political  spectrum  that 
refused  to  compromise.  After  a  few  hours  of  debate,  most  of  it  in  the  middle  of  the 
night,  House  leaders  decided  that  they  did  not  want  to  devote  the  necessary  tune  to 
deal  with  amendments  and  discussion,  and  the  bill  was  taken  down.  The  convention- 
al wisdom  is  that  a  serious  immigration  reform  bill  will  not  be  considered  again  for 
another  five  years.  Why  should  that  be? 

There  is  a  consensus  in  the  country  that  we  have  lost  control  of  our  borders.  It  is 
estimated  that  there  are  as  many  as  10  million  illegal  aliens  here  already,  and  the 
flow  from  economically  troubled  areas  of  the  world  continues.  Some  employers 
profit  from  this  influx  of  cheap  labor;  some  ethnic  political  groups  are  happy  to 
build  their  constituencies.  They  want  amnesty  for  those  undocumented  immigrants 
who  are  already  here,  but  they  don't  want  sanctions  against  employers  who  know- 
ingly hire  illegals.  „.  ,,        ,.  ,  •„ 

In  August,  by  a  vote  of  80  to  19,  the  Senate  passed  the  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill  con- 
taining provisions  for  both  amnesty  and  sanctions.  The  House  Judiciary  Committee 
reported  the  bill,  and  it  was  expected  that  a  large  majority  of  House  members  would 
have  supported  it  had  they  had  an  opportunity  to  vote.  But  agreement  on  both  ele- 
ments of  the  compromise  was  essential.  In  urging  his  colleagues  to  support  the  bill, 


98 

Rep.  Barney  Frank  (D-Mass.)  put  it  in  practical  terms:  "It  may  no  longer  be  the  case 
that  love  and  marriage  go  together,  but  amnesty  and  sanctions  sure  do." 

Opponents  of  sanctions  may  have  succeeded  in  sidetracking  the  bill  this  month, 
but  they  are  playing  a  risky  game.  They  have  left  10  million  illegal  aliens  in  limbo 
by  not  acting  on  a  bill  with  generous  amnesty  provisions.  If  the  American  economy 
does  not  improve  quickly,  and  if  unemployment  continues  to  rise,  it  is  possible  that 
public  sentiment  will  turn  against  the  undocumented  aliens  who  are  working  in  this 
country  and  that  support  for  amnesty  will  diminish.  By  offering  no  reasonable  alter- 
native to  employer  sanctions — massive  economic  assistance  to  all  countries  from 
which  the  illegals  are  coming  is  not  a  practical  and  immediate  answer— they  leave 
themselves  open  to  a  charge  that  they  affirmatively  favor  unlimited,  uncontrolled 
and  illegal  immigration.  There  is  little  support  for  this  position  in  Congress  or  in 
the  country. 

The  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill  remains  a  good  compromise,  devised  by  thoughtful  legis- 
lators, supported  by  the  administration  and  the  broad  center  of  experts  and  policy- 
makers. It  was  not  defeated  last  weekend,  just  delayed.  It  belongs  high  on  the  list  of 
matters  to  be  considered  by  the  new  Congress  and  deserves  the  support  of  all  but 
those  who,  for  their  own  reasons,  prefer  the  chaotic  status  quo. 


Let's  Remove  Job  Lure — Stem  the  Alien  Tide 

(By  Mike  Royko) 

It  was  a  question  I  expected.  "Where  did  your  parents  or  grandparents  come 
from?" 

I  knew  somebody  would  ask  it  after  I  wrote  a  column  supporting  a  proposed  bill 
aimed  at  reducing  the  number  of  illegal  aliens  in  this  country. 

The  person  who  asked  the  question— a  lady  with  a  throbbing  social  conscience — 
added:  "I  assume  you're  of  immigrant  stock." 

The  answer  was  obvious.  Of  course  I'm  of  immigrant  stock.  Who  isn't? 

Only  two  American  groups  aren't  descended  from  immigrants:  The  Indians,  who 
are  the  only  true  American  natives,  and  the  blacks,  who  were  essentially  kidnap 
victims. 

So  all  the  rest  of  us  are  here  because  somebody  got  on  the  boat.  The  only  differ- 
ences are  when  our  ancestors  came  here  and  from  where — a  distinction  that's  im- 
portant only  if  you  want  to  get  into  the  Social  Register. 

In  my  case,  my  father  was  brought  here  by  his  widowed  mother  when  he  was  a 
child.  My  mother  was  born  here  of  immigrant  parents. 

I  knew  what  the  lady's  next  question  would  be: 

"Then  how  can  you  propose  depriving  others  of  the  kind  of  opportunity  that  your 
immigrant  ancestors  had?" 

Ah,  she  thought  she  had  me. 

But  she  didn't,  because  I'm  not  proposing  that  anybody  be  deprived  of  the  kind  of 
opportunity  that  my  immigrant  ancestors  had. 

They  came  here  legally,  at  a  time  when  the  national  policy  of  this  country  was  to 
encourage  immigration. 

This  country,  with  its  incredible  industrial  expansion,  needed  more  people  for  the 
factories  and  mines  and  mills.  It  needed  them  to  work  farms.  But  that's  not  the  na- 
tional policy  anymore.  We  don't  need  millions  of  immigrants,  most  of  them  un- 
skilled, because  the  economy  can't  absorb  them. 

So  I'm  in  favor  of  immigrants  having  the  same  kind  of  deal  as  the  earlier  ones 
had — coming  here  legally,  and  within  a  numbers  limit  set  by  this  country. 

I'm  also  in  favor  of  this  country  continuing  to  be  humane  in  granting  political 
asylum  to  those  who  are  valid  political  refugees. 

But  I'm  not  soft-headed  enough  to  believe  that  we  should  let  the  torrent  of  illegal 
immigration  go  on— not  when  millions  of  this  country's  citizens  can't  find  work,  and 
the  cost  of  social  services  is  already  being  stretched  to  the  breaking  point.  Yet,  this 
is  what  some  naive  souls  believe— that  if  somebody  manages  to  slip  across  the 
border,  that  should  be  enough  to  assure  him  or  her  of  resident  status.  Some  daffy 
groups  even  want  illegals  to  receive  full  social  benefits— including  voting  rights. 

They  consider  themselves  humane  and  generous  and  concerned  for  their  fellow 
man.  But  are  they?  If  they  are  that  concerned  about  their  fellow  man,  then  why 
haven't  they  considered  the  impact  that  millions  of  illegal  aliens  will  have  on  those 
who  are  already  at  the  bottom  of  the  economic  ladder? 

Most  of  the  illegals  come  here  for  one  reason:  jobs. 


99 

They  work  hard,  they  work  cheap,  and  they  are  the  kind  of  employees  that  many 
businessmen  love— they  keep  their  mouths  shut  and,  out  of  fear,  do  exactly  what 

they're  told.  ,-,     i.     j        rro.      j     -4. 

That's  why  many  businessmen  are  delighted  by  our  sieve-hke  borders.  Ihey  don  t 
have  to  build  plants  in  Mexico  to  find  cheap  labor,  they  just  wait  for  the  Mexicans 
to  sneak  up  here.  ,,      j 

So  they  spread  the  myth  that  only  the  illegals  are  willmg  to  do  the  dirty  and  hard 
jobs;  that  native-born  Americans  refuse  to  take  these  jobs. 

Basically,  that's  racist  propaganda.  What  it  obviously  means  is  that  blacks,  who 
have  the  highest  jobless  rate,  are  turning  down  jobs  that  illegal  immigrants  are  will- 
ing to  take.  ^  ,      ,.        .,..,.  ^1 

And  that's  nonsense.  Blacks  have  been  doing  the  dirty  jobs  m  this  country  longer 

than  anyone  else.  rm     t  •  i     ^i_    oi         ^.i. 

Every  immigrant  group  has  had  to  start  at  the  bottom.  The  Irish,  the  blavs,  the 
Italians  have  all  been  in  the  ditches,  the  mines  and  the  mills. 

But  nobody's  done  the  dirty  jobs  longer,  for  generation  after  generation,  than  the 
blacks  Think— when  was  the  last  time  you  saw  a  blond,  blue-eyed  shoe-shine  man? 

And  they're  still  willing  to  take  them,  if  that's  all  that  the  job  market  has  to 
offer.  Any  time  some  Chicago  plant  puts  up  the  for-hire  sign,  blacks  are  waiting  in 
line,  no  matter  how  much  drudgery  the  job  involves.  ,-•,.„ 

It's  probably  true  that  black  employees  aren't  as  putty-like  as  some  terrified  ille- 
gals. And  they  shouldn't  be.  Their  ancestors  paid  their  slavery  dues. 

So  by  1982,  they  have  a  right  to  ask  a  reasonable  rate  of  pay  and  decent  working 
conditions  for  a  day's  labor.  But  many  of  the  employers  who  bleat  that  only  illegals 
will  do  their  dirty  work  are  saying,  in  effect,  that  they  are  unwilling  to  pay  enough 
to  get  anybody  but  an  illegal  to  do  it. 

So  the  answer  isn't  to  let  millions  of  illegals  pour  into  this  country  and  take  those 
jobs,  but  to  pay  a  decent  wage  and,  if  necessary,  pass  the  cost  on  to  the  customer.  In 
the  long  run,  that's  cheaper  than  supporting  an  underground  population  of  illegal 
immigrants. 

That's  why  I'm  in  favor  of  a  bill  pending  in  Congress  that  would  require  everyone 
in  this  country  to  have  an  official  work  card.  Without  it  you  couldn't  get  a  job.  And 
unless  you're  here  legally,  you  wouldn't  get  a  job.  With  the  lure  of  jobs  gone,  the 
flow  of  illegals  would  stop. 

The  bill  would  also  grant  legal  immigrant  status  to  any  illegal  who  came  here  in 
1978  or  before.  And  to  most  of  the  Cubans  and  Haitians  who  came  here  in  1980. 

That's  not  exactly  hard-hearted.  Just  try  plunking  yourself  down  in  almost  any 
other  country  in  the  world  and  asking  for  a  similar  deal. 

Try  it  in  Mexico.  Go  there  and  tell  them  that  you're  broke  and  have  few  skills, 
but  you'd  like  to  stay  there  permanently  and  draw  welfare,  if  need  be,  and  take  a 
job  away  from  a  native. 

Oh,  they  might  let  you  stay  for  a  while.  But  the  room  where  you  sleep  could  have 
padded  walls. 


[Editorial  from  USA  Today,  Sept.  29,  1982] 

Congress  Must  Solve  Immigration  Mess  Now 

To  an  unemployed  Mexican  whose  desperate  situation  has  been  gravely  worsened 
by  his  country's  economic  crisis,  the  border  between  Mexico  and  the  United  States 
is  a  magnet,  not  a  barrier. 

And  the  life  that  illegal  aliens  find  here,  though  meager  and  harsh  by  American 
standards,  is  a  big  step  up  from  life  in  Mexico. 

Wages  here  are  15  times  higher.  Inflation  there  is  running  at  100  percent.  Unem- 
ployment is  25  percent.  And  the  Mexican  population  is  expected  to  double  in  20 
years. 

So  hundreds  of  thousands  of  Mexicans  sneak  into  the  United  States  each  year, 
joining  an  underground  of  as  many  as  6  million  illegal  aliens.  They  burden  social 
services  in  local  communities.  They  crowd  shrinking  job  markets,  where  unscrupu- 
lous employers  exploit  them.  And  they  are  presented  by  native-born  Americans  and 
legal  immigrants  from  California  to  Florida.  .     ,    . 

Their  presence  in  the  United  States  is  mute  testimony  that  the  nation  s  immigra- 
tion policy  is  a  disaster.  This  week.  Congress  has  a  chance  to  reform  the  immigra- 
tion laws.  It  must  not  let  that  chance  slip  by. 

The  proposed  Immigration  Reform  and  Control  Act  of  1982  would  grant  legal 
status— in  effect,  amnesty— to  illegal  aliens.  That  is  controversial.  But  the  altema- 


100 

tive  is  worse.  The  country  cannot  afford  to  hire  enough  border  patrol  officers  to 
deport  them. 

As  long  as  there  are  U.S.  jobs  for  illegal  aliens  they  will  come.  This  bill  would,  for 
the  first  time,  impose  federal  penalties  on  employers,  thereby  shutting  off  those 
jobs. 

It  also  would  require  the  president  to  devise  a  secure  form  of  identification,  per- 
haps an  improved  Social  Security  card,  so  that  employers  could  not  claim  they  did 
not  know  a  worker  was  an  illegal  alien. 

The  idea  of  a  national  identification  card  naturally  conjures  up  images  of  a  police 
state.  But  under  this  law,  nobody  would  be  required  to  carry  a  card  and  police 
would  be  prohibited  from  demanding  it. 

For  ten  years  the  federal  government  has  waded  in  a  backwash  of  proposed  re- 
forms while  America's  borders  have  been  flooded  with  waves  of  illegal  immigrants. 

This  year,  the  Senate  at  last  passed  a  workable  bill.  A  similar  version  now  is 
stalled  in  the  House.  Unless  it  passes  before  Congress  recesses  this  week,  this  coun- 
try might  as  well  surrender  the  legal  control  of  its  borders. 

Mexico  and  other  countries  are  happily  offering  the  United  States  their  tired  and 
their  poor.  But  this  nation's  ability  to  fulfill  the  American  dream  for  immigrants — 
and  for  Americans — depends  upon  an  immigration  system  that  works.  Our  present 
Congress  must  fix  it  now. 


[Editorial  from  the  Los  Angeles  Times,  Sept.  27,  1982] 

Let's  Give  It  a  Chance 

Time  is  running  short  for  the  House  of  Representatives  to  act  on  the  most  com- 
prehensive reform  of  this  country's  immigration  laws  that  has  been  attempted  in 
the  last  30  years. 

Unless  the  leadership  of  the  House,  particularly  on  the  Democratic  side,  pushes 
the  Immigration  Reform  and  Control  Act  of  1982  more  energetically,  the  bill  could 
be  dead  for  this  session  of  Congress.  The  House  Judiciary  Committee  approved  the 
bill  last  week,  and  it  is  now  pending  before  the  Rules  Committee,  which  can  either 
bottle  it  up  or  pass  it  to  the  House  floor  for  a  final  vote  before  Congress  recesses  for 
the  November  elections. 

If  the  immigration-reform  bill  dies,  it  will  have  to  be  reintroduced  before  the  next 
session  of  Congress.  That  would  mean  a  repetition  of  the  long,  arduous  effort  that 
its  co-authors.  Sen.  Alan  K.  Simpson  (R-Wyo.)  and  Rep.  Romano  L.  Mazzoli  (D-Ky.), 
have  put  out  to  get  it  this  far. 

Even  worse,  it  would  mean  that  this  country's  current  immigration  system — 
which  is  hardly  a  system  at  all,  considering  the  slowness  with  which  it  works  and 
the  ease  with  which  it  is  circumvented — would  continue  to  operate  as  it  does  now 
for  many  more  months,  and  possibly  years.  That  is  clearly  unacceptable,  because 
the  present  system  causes  the  exploitation  of  illegal  immigrants  and  breeds  con- 
tempt for  laws  that  are  not  enforced. 

The  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill  can  be  criticized  on  many  points.  It  should  provide  a 
more  generous  amnesty  for  illegal  immigrants  who  have  established  themselves  in 
the  United  States,  it  should  be  more  specific  on  setting  up  a  national  worker-identi- 
ty system  to  help  enforce  sanctions  against  employers  who  hire  illegal  workers  and 
it  should  include  a  reorganization  of  the  U.S.  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Serv- 
ice. 

But  the  bill's  two  authors  frankly  concede  that  it  is  not  perfect.  They  argue  that 
their  bill  represents  a  compromise,  and  that  it  is  the  best  balanced,  most  humane 
reform  bill  possible  at  this  time.  They  say  that  its  critics  should  give  it  a  chance  to 
work,  and  we  agree. 

House  leaders,  especially  Speaker  Thomas  P.  (Tip)  O'Neill,  Jr.  (D-Mass.)  and  Ma- 
jority Leader  Jim  Wright  (D-Tex.),  should  push  the  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill  to  the 
House  floor  this  week.  To  delay  any  more  could  be  fatal. 

To  have  come  this  close  to  finally  acting  on  a  complex  problem  that  has  troubled 
public  opinion  for  so  many  years  and  do  nothing  would  be  a  dereliction  of  duty  by 
Congress.  If  nothing  is  done  now,  this  country's  immigration  problems  will  not  go 
away,  but  only  get  worse. 


101 

[Editorial  from  the  New  York  Times,  Sept.  24,  1982] 

Showing  ID  at  the  Goljjen  Doors 

There  are,  in  truth,  two  golden  doors  to  the  United  States.  Anyone  who  wants  to 
keep  the  front  door  open  to  legal  immigration,  despite  the  rising  natiyist  and  racist 
pressures,  should  like  the  Simpson-Mazzoli  immigration  reform  bill.  So  should 
anyone  who  wants  to  close  the  back  door  against  illegal  immigration.  That's  why 
the  bill,  having  overwhelmingly  passed  the  Senate,  has  finally  run  the  gauntlet  of 
the  House  Judiciary  Committee.  If  the  House  leadership  recognizes  how  broad  a 
consensus  the  bill  represents,  it  could  come  before  the  whole  House  next  week. 

But  consensus  notwithstanding,  critics  right  and  left  are  rushing  to  launch  torpe- 
does, notably  because  they  are  offended  by  the  bill's  key  provision:  employer  sanc- 
tions. That  is,  employers  could  no  longer  innocently  hire  illegal  aliens.  They  would 
have  to  check  the  identification  of  prospective  workers,  thus  discouraging  the  illegal 
flow.  To  the  critics,  identification  is  a  dirty  word;  they  insist  that  as  a  cure,  it  is 
worse  than  the  disease. 

The  argument  may  have  appeal  to  libertarians  on  the  right  and  to  civil  libertar- 
ians on  the  left,  but  it  remains  romantic.  The  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill  offers  the  oppor- 
tunity of  a  generation  and  ought  not  to  be  obstructed  by  such  yearnings  for  a  sim- 
pler past.  Identification  is  a  fact  of  modern  American  life.  The  test  is  how  to  use  it 
wisely. 

The  American  Civil  Liberties  Union  opposes  use  of  Social  Security  or  other  Gov- 
ernment cards  to  identify  legal  immigrants  applying  for  work:  that  would,  in  effect, 
create  an  "employment  passport."  The  libertarian  right  expresses  similar  horror. 
Our  colleague,  William  Safire,  writes  of  "this  generation's  longest  step  toward  to- 
talitarianism." What's  all  the  shouting  about?  The  United  States  of  the  80's  is  a 
time  of  Visa,  MasterCard  and  other  forms  of  identification.  Americans  carry  it  not 
because  of  orders  from  some  Big  Brother  but  because  they  want  and  need  it. 

Applying  for  a  job?  You  should  want  to  give  your  Social  Security  number,  so  pay- 
roll taxes  will  be  properly  credited  to  your  account.  Hate  identification  in  principle? 
Probably  every  one  of  the  critics  has  a  driver's  license,  and  produces  it  without 
qualm  when  cashing  a  check.  And  if  not,  41  states  already  provide  special  cards  for 
people  without  drivers'  licenses  who  want  ID. 

The  only  practical  right  the  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill  would  curtail  is  the  right  to  use 
counterfeit  identification.  In  exchange,  the  nation  would  greatly  strengthen  its  ca- 
pacity to  control  the  borders  and  let  in  legal  applicants,  patiently  waiting  in  line, 
instead  of  gate-crashers.  To  us,  the  medicine's  side  effects  are  slight  compared  with 
the  disease. 

Ah,  but  that's  not  what  we're  afraid  of,  the  critics  say.  Once  you  create  national 
identification,  like  the  forgery-resistant  Social  Security  card  announced  just  yester- 
day, you  invite  increasing  intrusiveness.  The  police,  for  instance,  will  want  to  use  it 
to  look  for  heinous  criminals — and  then  not-so-heinous  criminals.  This  is  one 
camel's  nose  that  must  be  kept  out  from  under  the  tent. 

That  is  always  a  danger  with  a  camel,  but  what  a  sensible  society  does  with  a 
camel  is  ride  it.  One  does  not  ban  telehones  because  they  can  be  tapped.  The  Simp- 
son-Mazzoli bill  provides  a  fair,  humane  and  effective  way  to  control  immigration.  If 
the  97th  Congress  approves,  it  will  finally  have  done  something  to  be  remembered 
for. 


[Editorial  from  the  Washington  Post,  Sept.  14,  1982] 

Save  Simpson-Mazzou 

It  has  been  clear  for  some  time  that  legislation  is  needed  to  reform  the  inimigra- 
tion  laws.  This  year  it  appeared  that  Congress  would  finally  come  to  terms  with  this 
emotional  and  controversial  subject.  Interest  groups  from  labor  unions  and  the 
ACLU  to  agricultural  conglomerates  and  zero  population  growth  people  have  a 
stake  in  how  the  law  is  written.  Dozens  of  ethnic  groups  and  tens  of  thousands  of 
families  have  ideas  on  who  should  be  given  preference.  Even  foreign  governments 
have  something  to  say  about  how  we  handle  refugees  and  whether  their  brightest 
young  people  who  come  here  to  study  should  eventually  return  home.  It  is  not  a 
subject  on  which  compromise  is  easy,  but  compromise  has  been  accomplished. 

TTie  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill,  which  was  passed  by  the  Senate  in  July,  appeared  to 
contain  something  for  everyone.  Employer  sanctions  would  be  imposed  on  those  who 
hired  illegal  aliens,  but  such  aliens  already  in  the  country— we  can  only  guess  at 
their  number,  but  there  are  probably  9  to  10  million— would  be  given  amnesty.  For 


102 

the  first  time  a  numerical  limit  would  be  placed  on  legal  immigrants,  with  prefer- 
ence given  to  family  members  and  skilled  workers.  But  this  number  would  not  in- 
clude refugees,  who  could  be  admitted  in  any  number  in  the  event  of  an  internation- 
al crisis,  for  example,  as  long  as  the  president  and  Ck)ngress  agreed. 

When  the  bill  was  considered  by  the  Senate  last  month,  not  everyone  was  happy 
with  every  aspect  of  the  proposal,  but  a  large  majority  believed  that  the  compro- 
mises that  had  been  made  were  fair.  Amendments  offered  by  Sen.  Huddleston  to 
restrict  the  total  number  of  immigrants  and  by  Sen.  Kennedy  to  increase  the  total 
were  both  defeated.  Last  week,  however,  the  House  Judiciary  Committee  marked  up 
the  bill  and  adopted  a  number  of  the  liberal  amendments  that  the  Senate  had  re- 
jected. This  is  where  the  risk  comes  in.  There  is  now  a  great  danger  that  the  com- 
promise will  begin  to  unravel — a  scenario  often  witnessed  during  the  closing  days  of 
a  congressional  session.  Opponents  may  try  to  keep  the  bill  from  the  floor.  The  com- 
promises on  amnesty  and  refugees,  which  conservatives  never  liked  anyway,  may 
come  apart.  Years  of  work  and  careful  balancing  may  be  lost  in  the  rush  to  adjourn. 

As  the  birthrate  falls  in  this  country,  immigration  accounts  for  a  larger  share  of 
total  population  growth  every  year.  These  are  big  numbers,  and  they  affect  our 
economy  as  well  as  the  social  fabric  of  the  country.  If  the  bill  fails,  and  legislators 
have  to  go  back  to  the  drawing  board,  valuable  time  and  momentum  will  be  lost. 
This  should  not  be  allowed  to  happen.  It  is  the  responsibility  of  the  House  leader- 
ship to  count  votes  carefully  and  to  be  flexible  in  forging  and  preserving  compro- 
mise so  that  this  important  legislation  can  be  enacted  this  year. 


[Editorial  from  the  Boston  Globe,  Aug.  27,  1982] 

The  Immigration  Control  Act 

The  Immigration  Reform  and  Control  Act  that  passed  the  U.S.  Senate  last  week 
and  is  scheduled  for  House  debate  in  mid-September  is  aimed  at  "getting  control 
over  our  borders,"  across  which  an  estimated  half-million  illegal  aliens  come  each 
year  in  search  of  jobs. 

At  present  that  task  is  far  beyond  the  capabilities  of  the  Border  Patrol,  which  has 
only  one-tenth  of  its  2,300  agents  on  duty  at  any  given  moment.  With  domestic  un- 
employment just  short  of  10  percent,  and  with  social  unrest  and  economic  crisis  af- 
fecting one  country  after  another  in  the  Caribbean  and  Central  America,  a  revision 
of  the  immigration  law  is  overdue. 

The  reform  act,  coauthored  by  Sen.  Alan  K.  Simpson,  (R-Wyo.)  and  Rep.  Roman  L. 
Mazzoli  (D-Ken.),  contains  three  essential  features.  It  calls  for  development  of  a  na- 
tional system  for  identifying  workers;  makes  employers  legally  responsible  for 
checking  workers  IDs,  with  stiff  fines  for  knowing  violators;  and  provides  amnesty 
for  undocumented  workers  who  are  already  in  this  country,  a  figure  estimated  at 
between  3  and  6  million.  There  are  also  numerous  changes  of  secondary  importance, 
for  example  revisions  in  certain  categories  of  immigrants  allowed  special  treatment, 
and  changes  in  regulations  regarding  temporary  agricultural  workers.  Procedures 
for  exclusion  and  deportation  and  for  claiming  refugee  status  are  also  streamlined. 

A  bill  of  this  nature  is  bound  to  be  controversial  in  a  nation  which  still  identifies 
in  good  part  with  the  century-old  message  of  the  Statue  of  Liberty,  but  which  also 
faces  the  practical  necessity  of  adjusting  to  changes  in  the  world  economy  and  in 
demographic  trends.  Many  features  of  the  bill  have  drawn  mixed  reactions.  Still, 
the  81-18  Senate  vote,  with  liberals  and  conservatives  distributed  on  both  sides,  in- 
dicates a  consensus  that,  details  aside,  the  bill  is  on  the  right  track. 

An  odd  alliance  between  the  U.S.  Chamber  of  Commerce  and  some  Hispanic 
groups  has  opposed  the  bill,  the  former  to  avoid  responsibility  for  implementation, 
and  the  latter  out  of  fear  of  discrimination.  But  there  is  simply  no  way  to  stem  the 
flow  of  undocumented  job  seekers  unless  employers  are  held  responsible  for  check- 
ing the  IDs  of  job  applicants.  Under  the  bill  the  redtape  is  minimal.  And  as  for  fo- 
menting discrimination,  a  sound  identification  system  will  have  the  opposite  effect: 
Legal  immigrants  will  be  more  protected  from  discrimination  than  at  present  be- 
cause they  will  have  evidence  of  their  legal  status. 

The  Administration  has  generally  supported  the  bill,  but,  according  to  one  report 
yesterday,  may  change  course  suddenly  and  attack  the  concept  of  an  identification 
system  on  the  grounds  that  it  will  lead  to  abuses  "tjTiical  of  totalitarian  societies." 

The  Administration  can't  have  it  both  ways.  If  controls  on  immigration  are 
wanted,  there  must  be  a  national  ID  system.  How  else  can  illegal  aliens  be  distin- 
guished from  legal  immigrants  and  citizens? 


103 

Indeed,  an  adaptable  system  exists  in  the  Social  Security  card,  which  is  widely 
used  as  an  identifier.  Social  Security  cards  are  now  managed  laxly,  with  cards  easily 
forgeable  and  seldom  even  presented  when  a  Social  Security  number  is  required. 
But  if  the  cards  were  upgraded,  printed  on  special  paper  and  treated  with  the  re- 
spect given  any  document  such  as  a  license  or  credit  card,  they  would  serve  the  pur- 
pose. .  .  .,, 

The  notion  that,  simply  because  there  is  a  national  identifier  system,  citizens  will 
be  tyrannized  by  "the  authorities"  with  random  demands  for  their  "papers"  is  a 
canard.  If  a  card  system  were  used,  there  would  be  no  need  to  carry  or  present  it, 
except  when  applying  for  a  job.  r^■x.     .■  i 

As  Sen.  Simpson  notes,  "There  is  no  slippery  slope  toward  loss  ot  liberties,  only  a 
long  staircase  along  with  each  step  downward  must  first  be  tolerated  ..." 

It  is  part  of  the  human  condition  to  be  somewhere  on  that  staircase  in  any  event. 
U  S  citizens  stand  near  the  top.  With  a  national  identifier  system,  we  will  have 
moved  scarcely,  if  at  all.  It  would  still  be  a  long,  optional  descent  to  any  dungeons. 

[Editorial  from  the  New  York  Times,  Aug.  19,  1982] 

Immigrants,  History  and  the  House 

Will  the  97th  Congress  be  remembered  for  historic  legislation,  or  merely  house- 
keeping? It  has  spent  much  of  its  time  so  far  in  heated  battle  over  the  budget, 
spending  cuts  and  a  tax  increase,  important  but  largely  year-to-year  concerns.  Now 
that  the  Senate  has  overwhelmingly  passed  the  big  Simpson-Mazzoli  immigration 
reform  bill,  the  House  has  a  chance  to  do  something  worth  remembering  years  from 
now.  But  that  means  it  must  act  quickly;  there  are  fewer  than  20  legislative  days 
remaining  before  adjournment.  tt    t.       i-- 

What's  historic  about  the  bill  is  the  principle.  As  the  Rev.  Theodore  Hesburgh  s 
immigration  study  commission  said  last  year,  the  way  to  keep  the  front  door  open  is 
to  close  the  back  door.  The  nation  wants  and  needs  to  unite  families,  to  bring  in 
people  with  valued  skills,  to  infuse  the  renewing  spirit  of  immigrant  ambition  and 
energy.  But  meanwhile,  a  continued  flood  of  illegal  immigration  taxes  national  pa- 
tience to  the  point  that  some  people  are  ready  to  slam  all  the  doors  shut. 

To  its  lasting  credit,  the  Senate  refused  to  reduce  the  amount  of  legal  immigra- 
tion and  endorsed  a  provision  to  keep  illegal  immigrants  from  coming  in  the  back 
door.  The  best  way  to  do  that  is  to  take  the  pie  off  the  kitchen  table— by  eliminating 
the  economic  incentive  to  sneak  into  the  country  for  jobs  that  pay  a  fortune  com- 
pared with  what  it's  possible  to  earn  back  home. 

Thus  the  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill  calls  for  "employer  sanctions,"  forbidding  employ- 
ers for  the  first  time  to  hire  illegals.  While  that  is  a  landmark,  the  Senate  bill  is  far 
from  perfect.  It  creates  two  problems  in  particular  for  the  House  to  address.  One  is 
that  Hispanic-American  organizations  fear  employer  sanctions.  They  suspect  that 
many  employers  will  refuse  to  hire  anyone  who  even  looks  Hispanic,  legal  or  not, 
rather  than  risk  tangling  with  new  law.  It  is  a  reasonable  fear,  which  Senator  Ken- 
nedy tried  to  meet  without  success  in  the  Senate. 

What  would  be  the  harm  of  having  an  agency  like  the  General  Accounting  Office 
or  the  Equal  Employment  Opportunity  Commission  investigate  possible  discrimina- 
tory effects  and  make  periodic  reports?  Some  such  procedure  would  not  eliminate 
Hispanic  concerns,  but  simply  respect  should  make  the  House  glad  to  allay  them. 

The  second  area  for  improvement  is  amnesty  for  illegal  aliens  who  have  been 
here  for  years,  living  under  a  cloud  and  vulnerable  to  exploitation.  A  one-time  am- 
nesty is  the  humane  way  to  clear  the  decks,  but  the  version  finally  patched  together 
by  the  Senate  is  an  administrative  monstrosity.  It  would  create  three  different  cate- 
gories of  illegals,  each  accorded  a  different  status  and  each  given  different  rights  to 
public  benefits.  The  House  would  serve  both  clarity  and  charity  by  insisting  on 

something  simpler.  .      „  rm.     r  t      e 

With  the  session  draining  away  so  fast,  can  the  House  act  in  time?  The  tate  ot 
immigration  reform  now  depends  on  Peter  Rodino,  the  canny  New  Jersey  Democrat 
who  heads  the  House  Judiciary  Committee.  He's  the  same  Peter  Rodino  who  pushed 
employer  sanctions  through  the  House  twice,  in  1972  and  1973,  only  to  see  them  die 
in  the  Senate.  This  time  the  Senate  is  committed  first.  History  waits. 


104 

[Editorial  from  the  Los  Angeles  Times,  Sept.  19,  1982] 

.  .  .  AND  U.S.  Immigration  Troubles 

The  crisis  in  the  Mexican  economy  is  certain  to  increase  the  number  of  its  citizens 
attempting  to  cross  the  border  to  look  for  employment  in  this  country,  and  that  fact 
argues  strongly  for  the  earliest  possible  strengthening  of  present  immigration  con- 
trols. 

The  first  major  overhaul  of  the  nation's  immigration  policies  in  30  years  won  the 
approval  of  the  Senate  earlier  this  week,  and  by  the  surprisingly  large  margin  of  81 
to  18. 

But  the  chief  sponsor  of  the  legislation  (S.  2222),  Sen.  Alan  K.  Simpson  (R-Wyo.) 
was  the  first  to  acknowledge  that  it  is  only  "a  small  start,  a  very  small  stride  for- 
ward." 

Given  Mexico's  mounting  difficulties  and  the  complex  and  controversial  aspects  of 
immigration  reform,  Simpson  is  correct.  No  single  measure  will  enable  the  govern- 
ment to  guarantee  equity  in  its  immigration  policies  or  to  halt  the  massive  flow  of 
illegal  immigrants. 

The  measure  is  now  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  where  its  enactment  is 
likely  this  session,  and  President  Reagan  has  said  that  he  would  sign  it  in  its 
present  form. 

But  intense  disagreement  over  many  features  of  S.  2222  will  continue  in  the 
House  and  across  the  country  even  if  the  measure  becomes  law. 

The  most  important  sections  have  been  under  continuing  fire.  Employers  object  to 
fines  and  possible  imprisonment  for  knowingly  hiring  illegal  aliens.  Civil  libertar- 
ians argue  that  the  necessity  to  proven  legal  status  when  applying  for  work  would 
discriminate  against  all  persons  of  Latino  appearance. 

The  complaints  may  or  may  not  have  merit,  that  cannot  be  known  until  after  the 
new  policies  are  in  place.  But  it  is  known  that  under  existing  laws  the  nation  has 
lost  control  of  its  borders. 

S.  2222  deals  directly  with  the  one  reality  on  which  its  opponents  and  proponents 
can  agree.  Most  illegal  immigrants  are  from  countries  suffering  from  poverty  and 
high  unemployment,  and  they  cross  the  border  specifically  to  look  for  work. 

The  sanctions  against  employers  who  knowingly  hire  them — fines  of  $500  to 
$2,000  and  six-month  jail-terms  for  repeat  offenders — should  vastly  reduce  job  oppor- 
tunities for  people  without  documentation  and,  simultaneously,  increase  them  for 
legal  residents.  The  requirement  that  job  applicants  have  proof  of  legal  status  would 
also  be  a  significant  disincentive  to  clandestine  immigration. 

One  control  would  not  work  without  the  other.  It  would  be  unreasonable  to  expect 
employers  to  screen  applicants  without  specifying  the  acceptable  forms  of  identifica- 
tion— a  driver's  license  or  a  Social  Security  card. 

The  measure  also  calls  on  the  Administration  to  devise,  within  three  years,  a  forg- 
ery-proof identity  card,  which  critics  equate  with  the  "domestic  passport"  common 
in  totalitarian  countries.  That  concern  would  be  justified  if  the  cards  were  issued 
only  to  immigrants,  but  all  Americans  would  carry  the  new  form  of  identification, 
which  would  have  to  be  shown  only  when  applying  for  work. 

But  the  identity  card  and  penalties  against  employers  who  knowingly  hire  illegals 
have  given  rise  to  charges  that  S.  2222  would  result  in  harassment  of  Latinos  and 
the  refusal  of  many  employers  to  even  interview  persons  of  Latino  appearance. 

We  understand  that  concern,  but  other  sections  of  the  measure  should  allay  suspi- 
cions that  it  is  discriminatory  against  a  single  ethnic  group. 

Its  amnesty  provisions  are  appropriately  generous;  they  would  grant  permanent 
legal  status  to  all  who  came,  to  this  country  before  1977,  and  three-year  temporary 
status  to  all  who  came  before  1980.  Most  have  come  from  Mexico. 

Although  the  legislation  would  continue  the  present  overall  immigration  quota  of 
425,000  a  year,  excluding  refugees,  it  would  give  Mexico  and  Canada  a  quota  of 
40,000  each— double  that  of  any  other  country.  Further,  it  would  allow  Mexico  to 
have  the  unused  portion  of  the  Canadian  quota. 

There  are  sections  of  S.  2222  that  we  do  not  like.  We  question  the  constitutional- 
ity of  another  section  that  declares  recipients  of  amnesty  ineligible  for  all  federal 
assistance  for  the  first  three  years  of  their  legal  residence,  even  if  they  are  subject 
to  payroll  deductions  for  those  benefits. 

We  also  oppose  a  last-minute  amendment  by  Republican  Sen.  H.  L.  Hayakawa  ex- 
pressing support  for  the  designation  of  English  as  the  official  national  language. 

Simpson  was  right  in  opposing  the  amendment,  if  unsuccessfully,  as  a  gratuitous 
insult  to  migrants  who  have  yet  to  learn  the  language.  But  the  amendment  would 
have  no  legal  effect,  and  is  merely  a  token  victory  for  Hayakawa,  who  has  been  to- 


105 

tally  unsuccessful  in  his  past  efforts  to  pass  a  constitutional  amendment  to  achieve 
the  same  dubious  purpose.  ■      ^     ■     >^ 

The  earlier  that  S.  2222  becomes  law,  the  better.  The  present  system  simply  isn  t 
working,  either  to  curb  illegal  immigration  or  to  protect  the  rights  of  legal  mi- 
grants. Economic  and  political  distress  elsewhere  in  the  world  are  bound  to  aggra- 
vate the  situation,  and  we  are  long  past  the  time  for  testing  new  approaches. 

[Editorial  from  the  Christian  Science  Monitor,  Aug.  17,  1982] 

Act  Now  on  Immigration 

For  too  many  years  the  United  States  has  been  lax  in  controlling  illegal  immigra- 
tion. Day  after  day  the  illegal  aliens  cross  the  loosely  guarded  frontiers— and  end  up 
imposing  considerable  social  and  economic  strains  on  scores  of  communities 
throughout  the  US.  Yet,  as  Senator  Alan  Simpson  correctly  pointed  out  last  week, 
the  "first  and  most  important  duty  of  sovereign  nation"  is  to  gain  control  over  its 
borders.  And  it  is  precisely  for  that  reason  that  the  Senate  now  ought  to  act  deci- 
sively and  pass  the  new  immigration  control  bill  that  is  scheduled  to  come  before 
that  chamber  for  a  full  vote  today.  ,ro       .o-  j 

The  measure— the  so-called  Simpson  Mazzoli  bill,  named  for  Senator  Simpson  and 
Congressman  Romano  Mazzoli— represents  the  first  major  immigration  bill  since  en- 
actment of  the  McCarran-Walter  Immigration  and  Nationality  Act  back  in  1952. 
The  crucial  point  about  the  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill  is  that  it  is  not  designed  to  check 
or  end  legal  immigration.  Indeed  the  measure  would  continue  immigration  at  about 
the  current  level.  However,  it  would  seek  to  put  a  stop  to  the  intolerable  illegal 
entry  into  the  United  States  of  millions  of  persons  annually  in  recent  years.  Surely 
any  legislation  that  brings  order  to  control  of  a  nation's  borders  and  requires  that 
the  same  laws  of  entry  apply  equally  to  all  persons  cannot  be  called  nativist  or 
racist,  as  some  Hispanic  groups  now  are  alleging  about  the  new  proposal. 

The  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill  would  bring  a  halt  to  illegal  immigration  through  three 

It  would  require  some  form  of  national  identification  system  for  all  persons  seek- 
ing a  job  within  the  US.  The  government  would  have  three  years  to  devise  such  a 
plan.  During  the  interim  period  employers  could  use  such  already  established  cre- 
dentials as  a  driver's  license,  social  security  card,  birth  certificate,  passport,  etc. 

It  would  impose  legal  penalties  and  fines  on  employers  knowingly  hiring  illegal 
aliens.  Fines  would  range  from  $1,000  for  each  illegal  alien  on  the  first  offense  to 
$2,000  for  each  illegal  alien  on  subsequent  offenses. 

Finally,  the  measure  would  provide  an  elaborate  amnesty  program  for  millions  ot 
illegal  aliens  already  living  in  the  US.  Illegals  who  entered  the  US  prior  to  Jan.  1, 
1977  would  be  granted  permanent  resident  status.  Persons  who  entered  the  Ub  be- 
tween Jan.  1,  1977,  and  Jan.  1,  1980,  would  gain  temporary  resident  status.  After 
three  years,  they  could  become  permanent  residents  and  eventually  apply  for  citi- 

Hispanic  groups  and  some  civil  libertarians  object  to  the  fact  that,  under  the 
measure,  persons  in  the  temporary  resident  status  would  not  be  able  to  obtain  feder- 
al public  assistance  or  welfare  funds  for  some  three  years  or  so.  What  must  not  be 
forgotten,  however,  is  that  millions  of  aliens  have  entered  the  US  in  clear  violation 
of  existing  laws,  usually  during  the  dark  of  night,  by  one  or  another  furtive  manner 
The  fact  that  such  persons  would  be  granted  amnesty  and  allowed  to  work  toward 
eventual  citizenship  reflects  an  attitude  of  tolerance  that  probably  few  other  indus- 
trial nations  would  have  at  this  time  of  high  unemployment. 

The  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill  is  a  long  overdue  attempt  to  gain  control  over  Ub  bor- 
ders. It  deserves  congressional  support. 

[Editorial  for  the  Washington  Post,  Aug.  11,  1982] 

Law  and  the  Illegals 

The  Senate  is  about  to  begin  consideration  of  the  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill,  a  compre- 
hensive revision  of  our  immigration  laws.  The  proposal  is  the  result  of  years  of 
study,  extensive  hearings  and  wise  compromise  on  some  of  the  more  controversial 
aspects  of  this  problem.  One  of  the  most  important  provisions  is  designed  to  control 
illegal  immigration  by  penalizing  employers  who  hire  undocumented  workers.  Such 
a  sanction,  sponsors  of  the  bill  believe,  is  the  only  way  to  control  borders  since  most 
illegal  immigrants  come  here  specifically  to  work. 


18-556    0—83- 


106 

The  Select  Commission  on  Immigration  and  Refugee  Policies,  created  by  Congress 
in  1979,  estimated  that  between  4  million  and  9  million  undocumented  workers  are 
now  in  this  country,  but  former  labor  secretary  Ray  Marshall,  who  was  a  member  of 
that  commission,  admits  that  the  estimate  is  a  result  of  a  compromise  among  a 
widely  varying  set  of  guesses  as  to  the  actual  number.  Officials  simply  don't  know 
how  many  illegal  aliens  are  here,  but  they  do  know  that  unemployment  in  this 
country  is  now  at  9.8  percent,  and  that  very  job  held  by  an  illegal  alien  is  one  not 
available  to  an  American  citizen. 

Many  employers  oppose  any  change  in  the  present  law-enforcement  system  since 
they  prefer  to  pay  very  low  wages  to  workers  who  cannot  avail  themselves  of  their 
rights.  Mr.  Marshall  and  many  labor  leaders  believe  that  the  only  way  to  preserve 
these  jobs  and  improve  wages  and  working  conditions  in  some  industries  is  to  elimi- 
nate that  option  for  employers.  He  is  right. 

Another  controversial  question  concerns  refugees.  Under  the  provisions  of  the 
Simpson-Mazzoli  bill,  425,000  new  immigrants  would  be  allowed  to  enter  the  United 
States  each  year.  This  ceiling  does  not  include  refugees  who  under  existing  law,  may 
be  admitted  in  any  number  on  the  authority  of  the  president  as  long  as  he  notifies 
Congress  of  his  intentions.  Such  flexibility  is  needed  to  deal  with  emergency  situa- 
tions where  quick  action  must  be  taken  for  humanitarian  reasons. 

It  was  assumed  that  under  the  provisions  of  the  law,  about  50,000  refugees  a  year 
would  enter  the  country,  but  for  a  variety  of  reasons— the  continuing  needs  of  Indo- 
chinese  refugees,  the  Cuban  boat  lift— that  figure  has  been  much  higher  in  recent 
years.  Sen.  Walter  Huddleston  (D-Ky)  would  apply  the  425,000  ceiling  to  immigrants 
and  refugees  combined.  He  would  continue  the  president's  flexible  power  to  meet 
emergency  situations  by  allowing  large  numbers  of  refugees  in  during  any  given 
year,  but  would  then  subtract  numbers  over  the  ceiling  from  the  following  year's 

quotas.  . 

Those  supporting  the  Huddleston  position  believe  that  Americans  are  suffermg 
from  "compassion  fatigue,"  that  we  are  already  doing  more  than  our  share  to  accept 
the  homeless  and  the "  persecuted  of  the  world  and  that,  for  purposes  of  our  own 
long-range  economic  planning,  we  must  have  a  firm  and  fixed  number  of  new  ad- 
missions to  the  country.  To  disagree  with  this  position  is  not  to  accuse  its  propo- 
nents of  mean-spiritednesss. 

The  United  States  has  accepted  on  a  permanent  basis  large  numbers  of  refugees 
in  recent  years,  and  it  has  not  always  been  easy.  And  we  should  take  care  that  the 
total  numbers  do  not  regularly  substantially  exceed  the  original  expectations  of 
Congress.  Nevertheless,  the  Huddleston  amendment  should  be  rejected  because  it 
will  inevitably  curtail  this  country's  ability  to  accept  its  share  of  the  world's  refu- 
gees. In  stark  political  terms,  if  refugees  have  to  compete  for  quota  numbers  with 
the  brothers  and  sisters  of  American  citizens,  there  is  no  doubt  who  will  be  ad- 
mitted. 

This  nation  was  founded  as  a  haven.  That  quality  is  part  of  our  national  charac- 
ter, and  there  will  always  be  room  here  for  those  who  come  without  connections  and 
without  special  skills  simply  because  they  must  come  here  to  survive.  The  Huddles- 
ton amendment  severly  restricts  that  tradition  when  a  prudent  application  of  exist- 
ing law  ought  to  be  enough.  The  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill  should  be  passed  without  the 
Huddleston  limitation,  and  the  House  should  concur. 


[Editorial  from  the  Star  and  Tribune  (Minneapolis),  Aug.  10,  1982] 

A  Chance  To  Remark  U.S.  Immigration  Poucy 

More  immigrants  now  enter  the  United  States  than  came  during  the  peak  flow  of 
Europeans  in  the  early  years  of  this  century.  Immigration  now  accounts  for  about 
half  the  growth  in  U.S.  population.  Some  immigrants  come  with  permission,  but 
many  simply  infiltrate  America's  borders.  Sympathetic  though  Americans  are  to 
many  who  immigrate  illegally,  they  also  recognize  that  the  United  States  needs  a 
new  immigration  law— one  drawn  to  be  reasonable,  fair  and  enforceable.  An  impor- 
tant proposal  to  reexert  immigration  control  will  come  before  the  U.S.  Senate  this 
week.  This  bill  deserves  to  be  passed. 

Sponsored  by  Sen.  Alan  Simpson,  R-Wyo.,  and  Rep.  Romano  Mazzoli,  D-Ky.,  the 
legislation  embodies  the  most  sweeping  and  rational  reform  of  U.S.  immigration  law 
in  30  years.  It  will  need  a  strong  victory  in  the  Senate,  and  some  luck,  to  be  passed 
by  the  House  before  Congress  adjourns  for  the  fall  campaign. 

Many  in  Congress  would  just  as  soon  not  consider  the  Simpson-Mazzoli  proposal 
in  an  election  year.  Various  provisions  are  opposed  by  labor,  local  government,  busi- 


107 

ness,  civil-rights  and  religious  groups,  Hispanic  groups  and  agriculture.  The  list  of 
opponents  indicates  that  the  bill  has  teeth.  But  it  also  is  fair  and  reasonable.  The 
nation  is  more  than  a  sum  of  its  special  interests;  the  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill  serves 
the  national  interest. 

House  and  Senate  versions  of  Simpson-Mazzoli  differ  in  detail  but  contain  the 
same  four  general  provisions.  They  include: 

Civil  and  criminal  sanctions  against  employers  who  knowingly  hire  illegal  aliens. 
Most  illegal  aliens  come  in  search  of  work.  Simpson  and  Mazzoli  propose  to  elimi- 
nate their  immigration  incentive  by  making  jobs  for  them  scarce.  The  administra- 
tion also  would  be  directed  to  develop  a  counterfeit-resistant  method  for  screening 
the  status  of  job  applicants. 

Amnesty  for  illegal  aliens  who  entered  the  country  by  Jan.  1,  1982.  An  estimated 
3  million  to  6  million  illegal  aliens  reside  in  the  United  States.  Because  the  United 
States  cannot  and  should  not  search  out  and  deport  all  of  them,  the  best  solution  is 
to  declare  an  amnesty,  make  a  clean  break  with  bad  policies  and  start  over. 

An  annual  ceiling  of  425,000  on  admissions  to  the  United  States,  and  an  improved 
temporary  agricultural  worker  program.  Refugees— people  fleeing  political  oppres- 
sion— would  not  be  included  under  the  ceiling. 

Streamlined  exclusion  procedures.  Aliens  entering  the  United  States  illegally 
could  be  summarily  excluded  unless  they  claimed  asylum.  Those  who  made  that 
claim  would  receive  a  hearing  before  an  administrative  law  judge  and  have  the 
right  to  appeal  to  a  new  U.S.  immigration  board. 

Neither  American  citizens  nor  potential  immigrants  are  served  well  by  the  cur- 
rent U.S.  immigration  policy  mish-mash.  Americans  deserve  to  make  their  own  im- 
migration policy,  not  let  it  be  made  for  them  by  potential  immigrants  and  foreign 
governments.  Those  who  seek  a  life  in  America  deserve  a  set  of  clear,  fair  and  uni- 
formly applied  rules  and  procedures  by  which  they  may  gain  entrance.  The  Simp- 
son-Mazzoli bill  provides  both.  Congress.should  embrace  it. 


[From  the  Pioneer  Press  &  Dispatch  (St.  Paul),  July  24,  1982] 

Reagan  Has  Failed  To  Stop  the  Tidal  Wave  of  Illegals 

(By  Tom  Braden) 

It's  an  indisputable  fact  that  the  United  States  has  lost  a  principal  aspect  of  sov- 
ereignty: control  of  its  own  borders. 

The  Reagan  administration  came  into  office  promising  to  regain  control.  But  the 
immigration  specialist  at  one  of  Washington's  most  conservative  think-tanks  said 
the  other  day  that  his  estimate  of  the  number  of  illegal  immigrants  now  entering 
this  country  is  about  a  million  a  year— just  what  it  was  under  Jimmy  Carter. 

Failure  to  halt  illegal  immigration  was  one  of  the  reasons  Carter  appeared  to  be  a 
weak  president.  He  welcomed  the  Cuban  refugees,  then  discovered  that  Castro  had 
filled  a  lot  of  boats  from  jails  and  mental  institutions.  His  reputation  changed  over- 
night from  kindly  to  sucker. 

Reagan  has  not  been  forced  to  demonstrate  weakness  in  public  but,  on  this  issue, 
the  facts  don't  testify  to  strength. 

The  illegals  are  still  coming  from  Pakistan  and  India  by  air  to  Toronto  and  bus 
and  taxi  to  Detroit;  from  Third  World  flagships  docking  at  U.S.  ports  and  discharg- 
ing their  Chinese  crews,  from  leaky  boats  on  Florida's  coast;  most  of  all,  from 
Mexico  across  a  2,000-mile  border,  manned  by  a  force  of  immigration  officers  who 
number  less  than  the  police  who  watch  over  the  city  of  Baltimore. 

There  ought  to  be  some  way  in  which  to  stop  this  tidal  wave  which  promises 
within  the  lives  of  our  children  to  make  this  country  rather  different  than  the  one 
we  had  planned  to  make  for  them.  If  it  is  not  stopped  this  will  be  a  country  of  a 
different  tradition,  of  a  different  color,  of  a  different  law,  perhaps  even  of  a  different 
language. 

Such  a  law  has  been  proposed  and  is  now  before  the  Congress.  It  would: 

Meike  it  illegal  to  hire  an  illegal  alien. 

Require  all  citizens  to  carry  a  card  identifying  them  as  such. 

Require  all  visitors  to  hold  an  unrefundable  ticket  home. 

There  are  other  provisions  regarding  amnesty  for  illegals  who  are  already  here 
and  these  provisions  are  being  much  argued  about  as  though  they  were  the  crux  of 
the  matter. 


108 

They  are  not.  The  cnrx  of  the  matter  is  that  the  ill^al  immigrants  come  to  this 
country  in  search  of  jobs.  They  get  jobs  because  they  are  willing  to  do  labor  that 
many  employers  maintain  American  citizens  won't  do. 

As  a  veteran  of  the  Great  Depression  and  of  a  couple  of  years  spent  cleaning  out 
men's  rooms  and  women's  rooms,  I  don't  believe  this  complaint  is  valid.  Anyhow, 
I'm  in  favor  of  putting  it  to  the  test. 

Nor  would  I  find  it  a  violation  of  my  civil  liberties  to  be  required  to  carry  an  iden- 
tity card.  I  have  not  found  that  my  freedom  of  speech  or  movement  or  right  to  the 
privacy  of  my  home  is  in  any  way  impaired  by  the  fact  that  I  carry  a  Social  Security 
identifying  number  in  my  wallet.  It  would  be  hard  to  devise  a  card  which  is  forgery- 
proof,  but  surely  the  Bureau  of  Printing  and  Engraving  is  capable  of  coming  up 
with  something  within  the  three  years  the  Simpson-Mazzoli  Bill  mandates  that  the 
job  be  done. 

Nonetheless,  the  bill  languishes.  The  Reagan  administration  has  not  pushed  it. 
Not  one  candidate  among  the  Democratic  front-runners  has  made  support  for  immi- 
gration reform  a  talking  point  in  his  campaign. 

Sometimes  one  wonders  whether  democracy  works. 


[Editorial  from  the  Herald  American  rBoet<«j,  Jane  22,  1982] 

Weighted  Against  Aliens 

A  growing  consensus  on  the  need  to  overhaul  the  nation's  chaotic  immigration 
laws  may  push  the  Simpson-Mazzoli  immigration  reform  through  Congress  this 
year,  provided  it  is  not  weighted  down  with  the  costly  provisions  now  demanded  by 
some  local  governments. 

That  is  why  we  hope  Congress  will  resist  attempts  to  encumber  the  immigration 
control  legislation  with  amendments  requiring  the  federal  government  to  reimburse 
states  and  counties  for  any  public  assistance  obtained  by  aliens  who  would  be  grant- 
ed legal  residence  under  the  proposed  laws.  The  indemnity  provision  is  sought  by 
the  National  Association  of  Counties  which  fears  an  amnesty  provided  in  the  immi- 
gration reform  would  entitle  2.7  million  aliens  now  residing  illegally  in  this  country 
to  apply  for  as  much  as  SoOO  million  in  welfare. 

The  fear  of  a  massive  march  on  the  welfare  office  by  newly  legalized  aliens  seems 
far-fetched,  inasmuch  as  most  aliens  remain  here  because  they  have  found  produc- 
tive jote.  But  even  if  the  fears  are  realized  in  some  degree,  the  bills  sponsored  by 
Sen.  Alan  Simpson,  R-Wyo.,  and  Rep.  Romano  Mazzoli,  D-Ky.,  already  have  built-in 
mechanisms  to  prevent  a  drain  of  local  welfare  funds. 

The  new  immigration  l^islation  calls  for  a  study  18  months  after  the  reform  be- 
comes law  to  assess  its  impact  on  state  and  local  governments.  Retroactive  federal 
reimbursement  is  authorized  if  a  cost  to  local  taxpayers  is  found. 

That  strikes  us  as  adequate  protection  for  local  government  against  undue  wel- 
fare costs  because  of  amnesty  granted  undocumented  aliens.  The  Simpson-Mazzoli 
immigration  reform  is  too  important  and  too  long  overdue  to  be  smothered  under 
the  burden  of  millions  of  dollars  in  welfare  indemnities. 


[Editorial  fnxn  the  Dallas  Morning  News,  May  29,  1982] 

Illegal  Aliens — A  Bit  of  History 

Progress  in  achieving  justice  for  illegal  immigrants  has  been  painfully  slow  in  the 
past  decade.  But  one  bastion  of  inertia  now  has  been  breached.  The  U.S.  Senate  Ju- 
diciary Committee  has  passed  its  first  immigration  I^islation  in  17  years. 

Although  we  haven't  seen  the  entire  product,  it  does  have  commendable  features. 
Employers  can  be  penalized  for  hiring  illegal  aliens.  And  amnesty  provisions  were 
liberalized.  Contrary  to  popular  misconceptions,  the  aliens  wouldn't  get  instant, 
automatic  citizenship.  If  residence  in  the  United  States  prior  to  Jan.  1,  1978,  can  be 
proved,  the  aliens  get  resident  alien  status.  If  they  arrived  between  1978  and  Jan.  1, 
1982,  they  can  get  temporary  resident  status. 

Of  course,  the  legislation  needs  to  be  carefully  studied  before  final  floor  action  in 
the  Senate.  But  it  is  a  remarkable  achievement  by  Sen.  Alan  Simpson,  R-Wyo.,  to 
prompt  any  action  at  all  by  his  colleagues. 

While  the  bill  may  not  be  perfect,  it  is  at  least  an  attempt  to  solve  a  festering 
problem.  And  considering  Congress'  record  of  fearful  inaction  for  the  past  decade, 
that's  progress. 


109 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Today,  as  our  leadoff  witnesses,  we  have  a  number 
of  our  colleagues  in  the  House  who  have  expressed  a  desire  to  tes- 
tify. We  welcome  them  and  are  grateful  for  their  having  taken  the 
time  from  their  busy  schedules  to  give  us  the  benefit  of  their  ideas 
on  this  legislation.  Later  on  this  morning  we  will  have  Attorney 
General  William  French  Smith  testify  as  the  lead  administration 
witness. 

I  thank  all  of  you  for  coming,  and  I  believe  these  will  be  interest- 
ing hearings. 

At  this  point  I  ask  to  come  forward  our  colleague  from  the  State 
of  California,  Congressman  Don  Edwards,  who  will  be  our  leadoff 
witness  today. 

Don,  we  welcome  you.  Your  statement — and  we  appreciate  your 
having  filed  it  early  for  us— is  hereby  made  a  part  of  the  record. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HON.  DON  EDWARDS,  REPRESENTATIVE  FROM 
THE  lOTH  DISTRICT  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Mr.  Edwards.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  appreciate 
your  allowing  me  to  testify  before  such  a  distinguished  committee 
today  on  this  very  important  subject.  And  I  want  to  express  my  ap- 
preciation for  the  devoted  and  hard  work  that  you,  Mr.  Chairman, 
and  the  other  members  have  done  on  this  key  issue.  We  are  all 
very  grateful  to  you  for  it. 

Mr.  Mazzou.  I  thank  you. 

Mr.  Edwards.  I  have  only  a  short  statement,  and  I  am  going  to 
limit  my  remarks  to  what  I  see  as  the  heart  of  the  bill,  that  is,  em- 
ployer sanctions.  I  have  been  dealing  with  employer  sanctions  ever 
since  I've  been  here,  which  is  going  on  21  years  now.  Employer 
sanctions  first  surfaced  back  in  1946.  The  provisions  in  the  bill  on 
employer  sanctions  are  not  acceptable  to  many  millions  of  Ameri- 
can citizens.  I  recall,  and  you  recall,  the  eloquent  dissent  in  the 
debate  on  the  House  floor  by  our  Hispanic  members  and  by  some  of 
the  black  members.  The  agony  is  very  real  insofar  as  many  mil- 
lions of  American  minorities  are  concerned  with  regard  to  employ- 
er sanctions. 

I  suggest  also,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  concept  of  employer  sanc- 
tions is  not  only  extremely  divisive;  it  is  going  to  be  ineffective. 

A  look  at  history  shows  that  wherever  employer  sanctions  have 
been  tried,  they  have  been  ineffective.  A  GAO  report,  dated  August 
31,  1982,  points  out  that  they  have  been  tried  in  19  other  countries 
and  they  have  been  ineffective.  In  our  own  country,  the  Federal 
Farm  Labor  Contractor  Registration  Act  of  1963  gives  evidence 
that  employer  sanctions  have  been  ineffective  in  the  United  States 
at  the  national  level.  We  have  had  employer  sanctions  in  a  number 
of  States,  including  my  own  State  of  California.  These  laws  are  on 
the  books.  A  1980  report  by  the  Comptroller  General  found  that 
the  most  our  domestic  employer  sanctions  laws  had  produced  was 
one  $250  fine. 

Mr.  Chairman,  with  such  a  history  for  employer  sanctions,  it  is 
surely  time  for  fresh  thinking,  resourcefulness,  and  creativity  in 
searching  for  a  solution  to  the  acknowledged  problems  of  illegal  im- 
migrants. With  employer  sanctions,  what  we  are  going  to  get  is  ha- 
rassment   of   our    Nation's    employers,    increased    discrimination 


110 

against  our  Nation's  minorities,  possibly  a  national  ID  card  for 
each  American  citizen — at  an  immense  cost,  it  is  estimated — and  a 
program  to  control  illegal  immigration  that  won't  work. 

I  call  your  attention  to  the  recent  conference  of  the  American 
Bar  Association  in  New  Orleans.  They  adopted  a  resolution  on  em- 
ployer sanctions.  It  says: 

Be  it  resolved,  that  the  American  Bar  Association  recommends  that  employer 
sanctions  should  be  rejected  because  they  would  be  an  unworkable,  ineffective,  ex- 
pensive and  discriminatory  procedure  for  controlling  undocumented  immigration. 

The  ABA  recommended — 

Those  Federal  agencies  charged  with  administering  the  immigration  and  refugee 
laws  and  the  pertinent  laws  governing  fair  labor  standards  and  practices  should  be 
provided  sufficient  resources  and  organization  to  enforce  and  administer  the  laws 
effectively  and  fairly. 

I  suggest,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  this  is  the  challenge  to  the  distin- 
guished members  of  this  subcommittee.  Much  of  the  problem  of  il- 
legal immigration  has  come  from  our  lack  of  providing  enforce- 
ment agencies  with  sufficient  resources.  Rather  than  putting  bil- 
lions of  dollars  into  trying  to  come  up  with,  implement,  and  main- 
tain a  national  ID  system  and  enforcement  of  employer  sanctions,  I 
respectfully  suggest  that  the  moneys  would  be  better  spent  in  en- 
forcing our  labor  laws  and  in  providing  resources  to  INS  and  other 
enforcing  agencies. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  know  that  there  will  be  some  alternative 
plans  and  amendments  offered  by  well-meaning,  very  responsible 
people  from  all  over  the  United  States,  and  I  know  that  you  will 
consider  these  alternatives  with  respect. 

I  thank  you  for  allowing  me  to  be  here  today. 

[The  complete  statement  follows:] 

Statement  of  Hon.  Don  Edwards  of  Caufornia 

Mr.  Chairman  and  other  distinguished  members  of  the  Subcommittee,  thank  you 
for  inviting  me  to  present  my  views  on  H.R.  1510,  the  Immigration  Reform  and  Con- 
trol Act  of  1983. 

I  will  limit  my  remarks  to  what  I  see  as  the  heart  of  the  bill,  that  is,  employer 
sanctions.  Mr.  Chairman,  the  provisions  of  the  bill  on  employer  sanctions  are  simply 
not  acceptable  to  many  millions  of  American  citizens.  The  concept  of  employer  sanc- 
tions is  not  only  extremely  divisive,  it  is  also  of  dubious  efficacy. 

A  look  at  history  shows  that  wherever  employer  sanctions  have  been  tried,  they 
have  proven  ineffective.  A  GAO  reports,  "Information  on  the  Enforcement  of  Laws 
Regarding  Employment  of  Aliens  in  Selected  Countries,"  dated  August  31,  1982, 
points  out  that  employer  sanctions  have  been  ineffective  in  nineteen  other  coun- 
tries. In  our  own  country,  the  federal  Farm  Labor  Contractor  Registration  Act  of 
1963  gives  evidence  that  employer  sanctions  have  been  ineffective  in  the  U.S.  at  the 
national  level.  In  addition,  employer  sanctions  have  been  proven  ineffective  at  the 
state  level  in  the  many  states  with  such  laws  on  the  books.  A  1980  report  by  the 
Comptroller  General  found  that  the  most  these  laws  had  produced  was  one  $250 

fine.  .    .  1     .•        r 

Mr.  Chairman,  with  such  a  history  for  employer  sanctions,  it  is  surely  time  tor 
fresh  thinking,  resourcefulness,  and  creativity  in  searching  for  a  solution  to  the  ac- 
knowledged problem  of  illegal  immigrants.  With  employer  sanctions,  what  we  will 
get  is  harassment  of  our  nation's  employers,  increased  discrimination  against  our 
nation's  minorities,  possibly  a  national  I.D.  card  for  each  American  citizen,  and  a 
program  to  control  illegal  immigration  that  will  not  work. 

The  American  Bar  Association,  at  its  recent  conference  in  New  Orleans,  adopted 
a  resolution  on  employer  sanctions.  I  quote: 

"Be  is  resolved,  that  the  American  Bar  Association  recommends  that  employer 
sanctions  should  be  rejected  because  they  would  be  an  unworkable,  ineffective,  ex- 
pensive and  discriminatory  procedure  for  controlling  undocumented  immigration. 


Ill 

They  recommended,  and  I  quote: 

"Those  federal  agencies  charged  with  administering  the  immigration  and  refugee 
laws  and  the  pertinent  laws  governing  fair  labor  standards  and  practices  (should)  be 
provided  sufficient  resources  and  organization  to  enforce  and  administer  the  laws 
effectively  and  fairly." 

I  believe  this  is  the  challenge  to  the  distinguished  members  of  this  subcommittee. 
Much  of  the  problem  of  illegal  immigration  has  come  from  our  lack  of  providing 
enforcement  agencies  with  sufficient  resources.  Rather  than  putting  billions  of  dol- 
lars into  trying  to  come  up  with,  implement,  and  maintain  a  national  I.D.  system 
and  enforcement  of  employer  sanctions,  I  respectfully  suggest  that  the  monies  would 
be  better  spent  in  enforcing  our  labor  laws  and  in  providing  resources  to  INS  and 
other  enforcing  agencies. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you  very  much,  Don. 

We  certainly  have  scheduled  these  7  days  of  hearings  for  the 
very  purpose  of  hearing  new  and  refreshing  information  that  per- 
haps we  didn't  have  last  year,  or  all  the  old  information  arrayed  in 
new  forms  that  might  give  us  a  lead  on  how  better  to  draft  our  bill. 
These  are  meant  to  be  very  intensive  and  in-depth  discussions,  and 
all  proposals  and  amendments  will  be  given  full  consideration. 

Let  me  ask  you  this.  It  certainly  came  to  us  at  the  full  committee 
last  year  and  on  the  floor  that  the  attitude  of  many  of  the  mem- 
bers was: 

Look,  you're  on  the  wrong  track.  Instead  of  worrying  about  setting  up  all  this 
mechanism  to  have  employers  file  papers  and  employees  produce  proof,  just  enforce 
the  existing  law.  Enforce  the  existing  immigration  laws  through  the  existing  Immi- 
gration Service,  and,  furthermore,  enforce  the  Fair  Labor  Standards  Act,  OSHA, 
and  all  the  other  statutes. 

Let  me  ask  you  this  question,  Don:  If  we  were  to  zealously  en- 
force all  of  the  work  standard  and  pay  laws,  are  we  going  to  solve 
the  problem  of  the  fact  that  these  people  who  are  in  this  country 
now  without  documents  are  docile,  are  tractable,  because  they  are 
afraid.  They  have  their  heads  down  and  their  necks  bowed.  Will 
the  enforcement  of  labor  laws  alone  cause  them  to  be  able  to  lift 
their  heads  up? 

Mr.  Edwards.  I  think  that's  actually  a  different  issue,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. This  bill  has  many  fine  features,  and  one  of  the  fine  features 
that  I  have  always  supported  is  legalization  somewhere  along  the 
lines  that  the  subcommittee  has  suggested,  or  perhaps  even  a  more 
generous  legalization  solution  as  suggested  by  Chairman  Rodino. 

I  am  concentrating  my  dissent  on  employer  sanctions,  I  could 
certainly  live  with  the  bill  and  support  it  with  enthusiasm  if  we 
could  have  some  resolution  of  the  employer  sanctions  aspect. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  So  it  is  your  view  that  legalization  can  pass  this 
Congress  without  an  attendant  feature  of  employer  sanctions? 

Mr.  Edwards.  I  think  the  American  people,  when  they  really  un- 
derstand the  issue,  given  the  national  debate  that  will  take  place, 
will  be  magnanimous  and  will  understand  that  we  are  going  to 
have  a  more  peaceful  country  and  a  fairer  country  if  there  is  legal- 
ization, but  it's  going  to  take  some  work,  of  course,  out  in  the  50 
States. 

Mr.  Mazzou.  I  appreciate  your  saying  that.  A  lot  of  our  time  in 
the  last  Congress  was  spent  trying  to  allay  the  fears  of  many  of  our 
members  about  legalization.  We  tried  all  sorts  of  formulas — single 
tier,  double  tier,  triple  tier,  and  everything  else,  to  try  to  overcome 
some  of  the  arguments.  And  unless  I  misread  the  tea  leaves,  there 
remains  a  fairly  serious  concern  of  many  of  our  members  about  the 


112 

idea  of  legalization.  Of  course,  some  have  said  that  they  will  accept 
it  only  if  there  is  passed  contemporaneously  some  mechanism 
which  would  tend  to  stem  the  flow  of  people  into  the  country  so  we 
could  have  a  finite  problem  to  deal  with.  They  say  without  en- 
forced order,  without  employer  sanctions,  you  have  an  infinite 
problem. 

So  there  are  some  who  possibly  might  disagree  with  your  analy- 
sis, but  I  certainly  do  appreciate  that. 

Mr.  Edwards.  I  understand  that,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  I  think  it's 
going  to  take  some  work.  I  point  out  that  in  another  subcommittee, 
the  subcommittee  that  I  have  the  privilege  of  chairing,  a  lot  of 
people  said  that  we  couldn't  strengthen  and  renew  the  Voting 
Rights  Act,  and  with  the  help  of  people  like  the  distinguished 
member  on  your  left,  Mr.  Fish,  who  offered  great  leadership  in  the 
minority  party,  we  were  able  to  do  the  right  thing  with  the  right 
bill  to  everybody's  surprise. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you.  Well,  I  am  sure  that  nothing  is  really 
impossible  in  this  world  in  this  Congress. 

Does  the  gentleman  from  New  York  have  any  questions? 

Mr.  Fish.  Let  me  at  the  outset  compliment  you,  Mr.  Chairman, 
as  I  did  your  counterpart,  the  Senator,  who  held  hearings  last 
week. 

I  am  delighted  that  we  have  started  early  in  this  Congress  on  im- 
migration reform  and  control  under  your  leadership.  I  think  you 
and  Senator  Simpson  have  shown  a  great  deal  of  resiliency  after 
spending  2  hard  years  on  the  same  issue. 

I  do  have  an  opening  statement,  and  I  ask  permission  to  put  it  in 
the  record. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Without  objection,  it  is  received. 

[The  complete  statement  follows:] 

Statement  of  Hon.  Hamilton  Fish,  Jr.,  on  H.R.  1510 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  welcome  the  opportunity  to  participate  today  in  our  first  hearing 
on  H.R.  1510,  the  Immigration  Reform  and  Control  Act  of  1983.  The  gentleman  from 
Kentucky,  the  chairman  of  this  Subcommittee,  deserves  commendation  for  his  per- 
severance and  resilience.  Few  people  have  given  of  themselves  so  much  to  realize 
necessary  but  difficult  changes  in  our  immigration  laws.  The  gentleman  from  Cali- 
fornia, the  Subcommittee's  new  Ranking  Minority  Member,  worked  diligently  on 
similar  legislation  in  the  last  Congress.  I  look  forward  to  his  leadership  in  this  ses- 
sion. 

Years  of  work  have  been  devoted  to  fashioning  the  major  immigration  legislation 
often  referred  to  as  the  "Simpson-Mazzoli  bill."  The  Select  Commission  on  Immigra- 
tion and  Refugee  Policy  held  twelve  regional  hearings  in  different  parts  of  the 
United  States,  conducted  24  in-depth  consultations,  and  authorized  extensive  social 
science  and  legal  research.  A  Cabinet-level  task  force  carefully  scrutinized  the 
Select  Commission's  findings  and  recommendations.  In  the  last  Congress,  this  Sub- 
committee and  its  Senate  counterpart  heard  numerous  witnesses  from  Federal, 
State,  and  local  governments,  business  and  labor  organizations,  industry  and  agri- 
culture, religious  and  ethnic  groups,  and  civil  liberties  organizations.  Our  Judiciary 
Committee,  although  unable  to  please  everyone,  made  a  conscientious  effort— under 
the  leadership  of  the  gentleman  from  New  Jersey— to  accommodate  very  diverse 
concerns  and  balance  competing  interest. 

Although  the  Senate  passed  its  bill  last  August  by  the  decisive  margin  of  80-19, 
the  House  regrettably  failed  to  call  up  our  bill  until  the  eleventh  hour  of  the  lame- 
duck  session.  Last  year  we  ran  out  of  time— but  this  year  we  are  determined  to 
move  this  legislation  to  final  passage  at  an  early  date! 

The  American  people,  for  many  years,  have  called  upon  the  Congress  to  confront 
our  lack  of  control  over  our  borders.  We  have  the  opportunity,  in  this  Congress,  to 


113 

act  with  firmness  to  deter  future  illegal  entry  and  at  the  same  time  reaffirm  Ameri- 
ca's histroic  commitment  to  accept  legal  immigrants  from  other  lands. 

Employer  sanctions,  the  centerpiece  of  immigration  law  enforcement,  is  a  key  pro- 
vision in  this  bill.  H.R.  1510  attempts  to  discourage  the  annual  flow  of  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  undocum.ented  aliens  by  removing  the  major  inducement  to  illegal  mi- 
gration— the  magnet  that  draws  people  to  our  shores — the  opportunities  for  employ- 
ment. The  concept  of  employer  sanctions  has  received  the  support  of  a  number  of 
Administrations,  favorable  votes  on  two  occasions  in  the  House  and  once  in  the 
Senate,  and  the  endorsement — by  a  14-2  vote — of  the  Select  Commission  on  Immi- 
gration and  Refugee  Policy.  Alternatives  have  been  considered  and  found  wanting. 
Employer  sanctions  constitute  the  only  effective  option — in  the  judgment  of  many 
people  who  have  focused  on  the  problem  of  illegal  immigration. 

This  legislation  specifically  guards  against  the  possibility  of  imposing  sanctions  on 
employers  who  hire  illegal  aliens  unknowingly.  The  language  of  Section  101  pro- 
vides that  it  is  unlawful  to  hire  an  alien  "knowing  the  alien  is  an  unauthorized 
alien  .  .  .  with  respect  to  such  employment.  .  .  ."  An  employer  that  "establishes 
that  it  has  complied  in  good  faith"  with  the  verification  requirements  "has  estab- 
lished an  affirmative  defense.  ..."  I  believe  the  statutory  language  as  well  as  the 
legislative  history  will  protect  American  businesses  by  limiting  the  application  of 
employer  sanctions  to  "knowing"  violations.  The  Business  Roundtable,  by  endorsing 
similar  legislation  last  year,  expressed  its  faith  that  employers  will  receive  fair 
treatment. 

H.R.  1510,  moreover,  has  been  designed  to  protect  ethnic  minorities  against  invid- 
ious discrimination.  Four  separate  provisions  of  this  bill  are  designed  to  prevent 
discrimination.  Employers  of  four  or  more  persons  who  ignore  a  warning  and  fail  to 
follow  paperwork/verification  requirements  will  face  a  $500  civil  penalty  ("for  each 
individual  with  respect  to  which  such  violation  occurred")  regardless  of  whether  the 
individual  turns  out  to  be  a  U.S.  citizen  or  lawful  permanent  resident  alien.  By  fol- 
lowing the  paperwork  requirement,  the  employer  will  know  whether  the  applicant 
is  eligible.  He  need  not  fear  making  a  mistake.  The  employer  will  discriminate 
against  minority  groups  at  his  peril. 

I  believe  the  full  Judiciary  Committee  strengthened  the  protections  against  dis- 
crimination in  the  course  of  our  markup  last  year.  One  important  provision  inserted 
by  the  Committee  directed  the  Civil  Rights  Commission  to  monitor  the  enforcement 
of  employer  sanctions.  In  addition,  H.R.  1510 — which  reflects  Judiciary  Committee 
action  last  year — directs  the  Attorney  General,  the  Secretary  of  Labor,  and  the 
Chairman  of  the  Equal  Employment  Opportunity  Commission  to  review  and  investi- 
gate complaints  of  discrimination.  Another  provision  of  H.R.  1510  requires  the 
President  to  consult  with  Congress  every  six  months  concerning  the  implementation 
of  employer  sanctions — including  possible  discrimination  in  employment.  The  very 
extensive  monitoring  and  reporting  mechanisms  are  an  expression  of  the  impor- 
tance we  attach  to  guarding  against  discrimination. 

Many  of  us  are  confident  that  existing  civil  rights  legislation.  State  and  Federal, 
will  provide  an  important  measure  of  protection  in  a  substantial  number  of  cases  of 
discrimination  based  on  national  origin.  Congressional  oversight,  moreover,  will 
help  insure  that  the  new  statute  is  properly  enforced. 

Another  major  focus  of  this  legislation  is  reform  of  the  immigration  adjudication 
process.  Today,  exclusion,  deportation,  and  asylum  adjudications  are  beset  with  crip- 
pling delays.  H.R.  1510  upgrades  the  administrative  adjudicatory  structure — by  pro- 
viding it  greater  independence  and  stature — and  thus  minimizes  the  need  for  pro- 
tracted judicial  involvement.  We  have  preserved  the  critical  role  of  the  Federal  judi- 
ciary in  adjudicating  the  important  liberty-related  matters  that  arise  in  some  immi- 
gration cases  but  have  eliminated  needless  layering  of  review. 

This  legislation,  finally,  recognizes  that  substantial  numbers  of  illegal  aliens  are 
here  to  stay  and  responds  realistically  and  humanely  to  their  plight.  At  the  same 
time  that  we  act  with  firmness  to  deter  future  illegal  entry,  we  must  display  com- 
passion in  our  treatment  of  those  aliens  who  have  become  a  part  of  our  society.  The 
conferral  of  a  legal  status  on  undocumented  aliens  with  years  of  U.S.  residence  will 
permit  this  population  to  come  out  of  the  shadows  and  contribute  more  to  our  coun- 
try. 

The  Select  Commission,  by  a  16-0  vote,  favored  "A  legalization  program  as  part  of 
its  enforcement  package."  Precedents  in  U.S.  law  for  legalizing  the  status  of  undocu- 
mented aliens  can  be  found  in  the  registry  date — which  serves  as  a  statute  of  limita- 
tions on  illegal  entry — and  the  discretionary  remedy  of  suspension  of  deportation. 

H.R.  1510,  in  my  opinion,  sets  appropriate  cut-off  dates  for  eligibility  for  legaliza- 
tion. Persons  who  entered  the  United  States  prior  to  January  1,  1977  may  qualify 
for  permanent  resident  status,  and  persons  who  entered  prior  to  January  1,  1980 


114 

may  qualify  for  temporary  resident  status,  a  transition  status  leading  to  permanent 
residence  after  three  years. 

The  approach  of  H.R.  1510  represents  an  appropriate  compromise  between  the 
views  of  those  who  would  eliminate  the  legalization  provisions  entirely  or  only  ad- 
vance the  registry  date  to  1973 — and  those  who  would  provide  lawful  permanent 
resident  status  to  persons  who  entered  prior  to  January  1,  1982.  A  failure  to  provide 
a  substantial  legalization  ignores  the  equities  of  persons  who  have  lived  in  the 
United  States  for  a  number  of  years,  perpetuates  the  existence  of  a  large  underclass 
of  illegal  aliens,  and  continues  to  subject  citizens  and  lawful  permanent  resident 
aliens  to  enormous  social  costs. 

I  look  forward  to  these  hearings  on  a  critically  important  bill,  confident  that  this 
year  we  can  bring  an  important  law  reform  effort  to  fruition. 

Mr.  Fish.  I  suppose  it  was  our  distinguished  colleague  from  Cali- 
fornia's intent  to  pull  my  fangs,  don't  you  think?  And  he  has  suc- 
ceeded. 

I  understood  before  I  arrived  that  you  said  that  during  the 
course  of  this  hearing  you  thought  people  would  come  up  with  al- 
ternatives to  employer  sanctions,  so  I  am  not  going  to  raise  the 
issue  now.  The  message  I  want  to  give  to  you  is  that  those  of  us 
who  served  on  the  Select  Commission  for  2  years  and  on  this  issue 
in  the  last  Congress  couldn't  find  an  alternative  that  would  be  ef- 
fective. And  we  believe,  as  Father  Hesburgh,  who  was  chairman  of 
our  Commission,  that  this  was  the  centerpiece,  the  enforcement, 
the  only  humane  way  of  attempting  to  get  some  control  over  the 
number  of  surreptitious  entrants  that  are  coming  in  and  the  conse- 
quences that  follow  from  that. 

So  I  think  the  burden  is  on  those  who  don't  like  that  part  of  the 
bill  to  come  up  with  something  as  effective.  I  certainly  hope  that 
would  be  the  main  result  of  this  hearing. 

I  thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Edwards.  I  thank  you,  Mr.  Fish,  and  I  will  try  to  be  a  part 
of  that  process.  I  recognize  the  difficulty  of  this  issue  and  the  great 
work  that  you  have  done,  and  certainly  we  can't  just  sit  here  and 
be  critical  and  not  be  creative  ourselves  at  the  same  time. 

Mr.  Fish.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you  very  much,  I  appreciate  your  help,  Don. 

According  to  our  schedule.  Congressman  Garcia  is  next.  We  are  a 
little  bit  early.  Is  he  or  Congressman  Wright,  Congressman  Brown, 
Congressman  Shaw,  Congressman  Towns,  Congressman  Lujan 
here? 

All  right,  we'll  take  a  momentary  pause  until  some  of  them  show 
up. 

[Whereupon,  a  short  recess  was  taken.] 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  subcommittee  will  come  to  order. 

It  is  my  pleasure  today  to  welcome  before  us  the  gentleman  from 
New  York,  Congressman  Robert  Garcia.  Bob,  you're  welcome.  Your 
statement,  of  which  I  have  a  copy,  will  be  made  a  part  of  the 
record. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HON.  ROBERT  GARCIA,  REPRESENTATIVE  FROM 
THE  21  ST  DISTRICT  OF  NEW  YORK 

Mr.  Garcia.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman. 

These  have  been  difficult  times  for  your  subcommittee  and  for 
the  full  committee  because  of  your  responsibility  of  trying  to  come 
up  with  a  meaningful  immigration  reform  package.  But  I  am  de- 


115 

lighted  that  we  are  starting  in  February,  as  opposed  to  debating 
this  issue  at  the  tail  end  of  a  lameduck  session. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  Garcia.  I  also  want  to  commend  you  for  your  continued  ef- 
forts to  seek  a  resolution  to  our  Nation's  immigration  problems 
that  will  be  satisfactory  to  all  groups  and  communities  throughout 
the  United  States. 

During  the  debate  on  the  floor  of  the  House  at  the  close  of  the 
97th  Congress,  I  made  my  views  on  this  issue  known.  I  have  not 
changed  my  position  since  that  time.  Although,  as  I  said,  I  welcome 
this  chance  to  clearly  express  my  views. 

Because  of  time  limitations,  I  will  try  to  be  brief.  There  is  prob- 
ably no  more  profound  legislation  confronting  our  Nation  than  the 
now  famous  Simpson-Mazzoli  immigration  bill.  Our  immigration 
policy  is  a  reflection  not  only  of  how  we  control  our  borders  but 
what  the  future  demographic  makeup  of  our  Nation  will  be. 

I  am  certain  that  none  of  us  who  have  seriously  considered  this 
problem  would  disagree  with  the  principle  that  we  need  a  new 
policy,  one  that  is  both  tough  and  fair — and  I  underline  "fair."  The 
construction  of  this  law  is  where  the  debate  begins. 

Let  me  start  off  with  what  has  bothered  the  minority  communi- 
ties across  America  the  most,  employer  sanctions.  The  fining  of  em- 
ployers who  hire  undocumented  workers  may  be  sound  in  theory, 
but  I  am  not  convinced  that  in  practice  it  would  work.  A  General 
Accounting  Office  study  commissioned  by  Senator  Simpson  on  "the 
enforcement  of  laws  regarding  employment  of  aliens  in  selected 
countries"  indicates  that  sanctions  do  not  necessarily  work. 

The  GAO  received  responses  from  19  countries  and  Hong  Kong. 
The  study  reported  that — and  I  quote: 

"Although  each  country  had  laws  penalizing  employers  of  illegal 
aliens,  such  laws  were  not  an  effective  deterrent  to  stemming  il- 
legal employment  *  *  *" 

I  have  suggested  the  enforcement  of  existing  labor  laws  in  place 
of  sanctions.  This  would  deter  employers  from  hiring  undocument- 
ed workers,  and  at  the  same  time  force  them  to  upgrade  wages  and 
working  conditions.  This  could,  in  effect,  remove  the  incentive  for 
hiring  undocumented  persons. 

The  primary  problem  with  sanctions  is  that  they  are  inherently 
discriminatory  toward  minorities.  Not  only  that,  they  put  an  exces- 
sive burden  of  paperwork  on  businesses. 

That  is  why  target  enforcement  of  labor  laws,  concentrated  on 
those  industries  that  take  advantage  of  undocumented  persons,  are 
so  practical.  They  eliminate  the  impetus  for  an  employer  to  dis- 
criminate against  minorities.  They  also  do  not  require  small  busi- 
nessmen to  maintain  an  excessive  amount  of  paperwork  on  employ- 
ees. 

Let's  try  enforcing  existing  labor  laws.  There  is  no  question  that 
the  machinery  is  in  place.  No  new  laws  and  regulations  are  re- 
quired. Additional  funding  for  the  Department  of  Labor  for  the  en- 
forcement of  these  laws  could  be  included  in  the  bill. 

The  elimination  of  sanctions  also  puts  off  the  need  for  establish- 
ing a  national  ID  card.  This  idea  is  particularly  disturbing  to  mi- 
nority groups,  because  we  are  the  ones  who  will  most  often  be  re- 
quired to  present  our  ID  card  or  number. 


116 

An  ID  system  would  be  expensive  to  implement.  Further,  it  cre- 
ates another  potential  black  market  that  would  drain  the  resources 
of  the  desperate  and  the  needy.  It  is  also  important  to  remember 
that  the  poor  and  chronically  unemployed  already  feel  frustrated 
with  government.  An  ID  system  would  be  looked  upon  as  another 
stumbling  block  placed  in  their  way  for  getting  a  job  and  becoming 
integrated  into  society.  The  poor  don't  need  to  become  even  more 
alienated.  I'm  not  saying  the  United  States  will  never  have  to  turn 
to  sanctions  or  an  ID  system,  but  I  am  saying  that  there  are  alter- 
natives that  should  be  used  before  considering  sanctions. 

I  do  not  support  an  expansion  of  the  H-2  temporary  worker  pro- 
gram. "This  seems  to  be  a  thinly  disguised  bracero  program,  which 
was  created  as  a  result  of  a  labor  shortage.  We  certainly  do  not 
have  that  problem  now.  Let's  make  certain  that  all  U.S.  farm- 
workers are  fully  employed  before  we  bring  in  workers  from  other 
countries. 

The  H-2  program  was  designed  to  handle  emergency  labor  short- 
ages. It  has  now  become  routine.  An  expansion  of  H-2  would  only 
further  depress  wages  and  working  conditions  for  U.S.  farm- 
workers. 

I  strongly  support  an  amnesty  for  all  undocumented  persons 
living  in  this  country.  I  believe  amnesty  should  be  made  retroactive 
1  year  prior  to  the  enactment  of  this  bill.  I  believe  all  individuals 
covered  by  amnesty  should  become  legal  residents,  and  I  believe 
that  the  United  States  should  make  it  known  that  this  is  a  one 
time  only  proposal. 

I  do  not  view  sanctions  as  a  necessary  precondition  for  amnesty. 
These,  as  far  as  I'm  concerned,  are  separate  issues.  Amnesty  is  an 
attempt  to  integrate  the  underclass  of  individuals  who  are  living  in 
this  country  without  documents,  outside  the  law.  Sanctions  are  de- 
signed to  discourage  new  immigration.  They  do  not  necessarily  go 
hand  in  hand.  Further,  the  two-stage  legalization  program  that  was 
contained  in  H.R.  7357  would  have  proven  to  be  a  bureaucratic 
nightmare.  Not  only  that,  but  it  would  not  have  brought  out  all  the 
individuals  who  are  today  living  apart  from  our  society. 

It  is  important  that  this  amnesty  program  is  included  in  the  bill 
and  not  left  up  to  the  discretion  of  the  Attorney  General.  A  com- 
mission should  be  set  up,  containing  minorities  and  those  persons 
who  are  most  affected,  to  oversee  the  implementation  of  the  amnes- 
ty program. 

Any  funding  that  would  be  used  for  organizing  and  implement- 
ing a  complex  two-stage  legalization  program  could  be  given  to  the 
INS  for  enforcement.  And  I  might  add  that  the  INS  needs  our  help. 
It  needs  money  for  more  officers,  for  better  equipment,  and  obvi- 
ously for  better  training. 

The  United  States  must  also  begin  to  deal  with  those  nations 
that  are  prime  senders  of  immigrants.  We  don't  have  to  develop 
our  policy  according  to  the  needs  of  the  governments  of  Mexico  and 
other  Latin  American  countries.  But  if  we  want  to  effectively  con- 
trol our  borders,  we  had  better  consult  with  countries  such  as 
Mexico. 

The  ongoing  crisis  in  that  nation  is  providing  even  more  of  a 
push  factor  for  illegal  border  crossings.  Perhaps  through  multilat- 
eral programs  we  could  provide  economic  aid  for  the  Mexicans  to 


117 

develop  labor-intensive  industries,  or  we  could  provide  technical 
training  for  Mexican  nationals  to  develop  such  industries,  or 
simply  remain  open  to  suggestions  made  by  the  Mexicans  and 
other  governments  of  nations  that  send  us  the  bulk  of  our  undocu- 
mented persons. 

I  am  not  certain  whether  or  not  a  Caribbean  Basin  Initiative  or  a 
CBI-styled  approach  to  this  problem  is  best.  Maybe  we  can  develop 
programs  through  the  Agency  for  International  Development.  The 
Inter-American  Foundation  is  probably  the  finest  example  of  an  ef- 
fective way  of  helping  the  poor  of  Latin  America  to  help  them- 
selves. Whatever  our  approach,  we  must  consider  the  foreign  policy 
aspects  of  immigration  policy  as  part  of  the  solution. 

We  should  not  deprive  political  refugees  of  their  day  in  court.  Ju- 
dicial proceedings  for  asylum  cases  can  be  legitimately  streamlined 
but  not  at  the  expense  of  denying  these  individuals  access  to  our 
Federal  judicial  system. 

In  addition,  refugees  from  non-Communist  countries  must  be 
given  the  same  chance  as  refugees  from  Communist  countries  for 
receiving  asylum.  These  proceedings  should  not  be  based  on  ideo- 
logical considerations  but  on  legitimate  political  persecution. 

I  see  no  need  to  alter  the  family  preference  system.  It  is  my  un- 
derstanding that  the  difficulties  for  the  INS  under  the  present 
system  are  procedural.  If  that  is  the  case,  additional  funding  might 
make  a  difference  in  eliminating  these  difficulties.  The  family  unit 
is  too  important  to  the  basic  fabric  of  our  society  to  undermine  it 
in  any  way. 

I  support  a  new  immigration  policy,  but  one  that  will  not  be  dis- 
criminatory toward  minorities.  I  feel  it  is  my  responsibility  to 
stand  up  for  my  community.  I  cannot  support  a  law  that  would  fur- 
ther alienate  or  potentially  discriminate  against  my,  or  any  other, 
minority  community.  On  this  particular  matter,  all  Americans 
need  to  work  together  to  build  for  the  future. 

[The  complete  statement  follows:] 

Statement  of  Hon.  Robert  Garcia 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  welcome  this  opportunity  to  testify  before  your  subcommittee  on 
an  issue  of  extreme  importance  not  only  to  the  Hispanic  community  but  to  the 
Nation  as  a  whole.  I  commend  you  for  your  continued  efforts  to  seek  a  solution  to 
our  Nation's  immigration  problems  that  will  be  satisfactory  to  all  groups  and  com- 
munities throughout  the  United  States. 

During  the  debate  on  the  floor  of  the  House  at  the  close  of  the  97th  Congress,  I 
made  my  views  on  this  issue  known.  I  have  not  changed  my  position  since  that 
time.  Although,  as  I  said,  I  welcome  this  chance  to  clearly  express  my  views. 

Because  of  time  limitations,  I  will  try  to  be  brief.  Any  questions  you  may  have  can 
be  submitted  to  staff,  and  I  will  have  my  responses  back  to  you  as  soon  as  possible. 

There  is  probably  no  more  profound  legislation  confronting  our  Nation  than  the 
Simpson-Mazzoli  immigration  bill.  Our  immigration  policy  is  a  reflection  not  only  of 
how  we  control  our  borders,  but  what  the  future  makeup  of  our  Nation  will  be. 

I  am  certain  that  none  of  us  who  have  seriously  considered  this  problem  would 
disEigree  with  the  principle  that  we  need  a  new  policy,  one  that  is  both  tough  and 
fair.  The  construction  of  this  law  is  where  the  debate  begins. 

Employer  sanctions— the  fining  of  employers  who  hire  undocumented  workers- 
may  be  sound  in  theory,  but  I  am  not  convinced  that  in  practice  they  would  work.  A 
general  accounting  office  study  commissioned  by  Senator  Simpson  on  "the  enforce- 
ment of  laws  regarding  employment  of  aliens  in  selected  countries"  indicates  that 
sanctions  do  not  necessarily  work. 

The  GAO  received  responses  from  19  countries  and  Hong  Kong.  The  study  report- 
ed that,  and  I  quote,  "although  each  country  had  laws  penalizing  employers  of  il- 


118 

legal  aliens,  such  laws  were  not  an  effective  deterrent  to  stemming  illegal  employ- 
ment ..." 

I  have  suggested  the  enforcement  of  existing  labor  laws  in  place  of  sanctions.  This 
would  deter  employers  from  hiring  undocumented  workers,  and  at  the  same  time 
force  them  to  upgrade  wages  and  working  conditions.  This  could,  in  effect,  remove 
the  incentive  for  hiring  undocumented  persons. 

The  primary  problem  with  sanctions  is  that  they  are  inherently  discriminatory 
toward  minorities.  Not  only  that,  they  put  an  excessive  burden  of  paperwork  of 
businesses. 

That  is  why  target  enforcement  of  labor  laws,  concentrated  on  those  industries 
that  take  advantage  of  undocumented  persons,  are  so  practical.  They  eliminate  the 
impetus  for  an  employer  to  discriminate  against  minorities.  They  also  do  not  re- 
quire small  businessmen  to  maintain  an  excessive  amount  of  paperwork  on  employ- 
ees. 

Let's  try  enforcing  existing  labor  laws.  The  machinery  is  in  place,  no  new  laws 
and  regulations  are  required.  Additional  funding  for  the  Department  of  Labor  for 
the  enforcement  of  these  laws  could  be  included  in  the  bill. 

The  elimination  of  sanctions  also  puts  off  the  need  for  establishing  a  national  ID 
card.  This  idea  is  disturbing  for  all  civil  libertarians,  and  particularly  for  minorities, 
because  we  are  the  ones  who  will  most  often  be  required  to  present  our  ID  card  or 
number. 

An  ID  system  would  be  expensive  to  implement.  Further,  it  creates  another  poten- 
tial black  market  that  would  drain  the  resources  of  the  desperate  and  needy.  It's 
important  to  remember  that  the  poor  and  chronically  unemployed  already  feel  frus- 
trated with  the  Government.  An  ID  system  would  be  looked  upon  as  another  stum- 
bling block  placed  in  their  way  for  getting  a  job  and  becoming  integrated  into  soci- 
ety. The  poor  don't  need  to  become  even  more  alienated.  I'm  not  sajdng  the  U.S.  will 
never  have  to  turn  to  sanctions  or  an  ID  system,  but  I  am  saying  that  there  are 
alternatives  that  should  be  used  before  considering  sanctions. 

I  do  not  support  an  expansion  of  the  H-2  temporary  worker  program,  this  seems 
to  be  a  thinly  disguised  bracero  program,  which  was  created  as  a  result  of  a  labor 
shortage.  We  certainly  do  not  have  that  problem  now.  Let's  make  certain  that  all 
U.S.  farm  workers  are  fully  employed  before  we  bring  in  workers  from  other  coun- 
tries. 

The  H-2  program  was  designed  to  handle  "emergency"  labor  shortages.  It  has 
now  become  routine.  An  expansion  of  H-2  would  only  further  depress  wages  and 
working  conditions  for  U.S.  farm  workers. 

I  strongly  support  an  amnesty  for  all  undocumented  persons  living  in  this  coun- 
try, I  believe  amnesty  should  be  made  retroactive  one  year  prior  to  enactment  of 
the  bill.  I  believe  all  individuals  covered  by  amnesty  should  become  legal  residents, 
and  I  believe  tht  the  U.S.  should  make  it  known  that  this  is  a  one  time  only  propos- 
al. 

I  do  not  view  sanctions  as  a  necessary  precondition  for  amnesty.  These  are  sepa- 
rate issues;  amnesty  is  an  attempt  to  integrate  the  underclass  of  individuals  who 
are  living  in  this  country  without  documents,  outside  the  law.  Sanctions  are  de- 
signed to  discourage  new  immigration.  They  do  not  necessarily  go  hand  in  hand. 
The  two  stage  legalization  program  that  was  contained  in  H.R.  7357  would  have 
proven  to  be  a  bureaucratic  nightmare.  Not  only  that,  but  it  would  not  have 
brought  out  all  the  individuals  who  are  living  apart  from  our  society. 

It  is  important  that  this  amnesty  program  is  included  in  the  bill  and  not  left  up  to 
the  discretion  of  the  Attorney  General.  A  commission  should  be  set  up,  containing 
minorities,  to  oversee  the  implementation  of  the  amnesty  program. 

Any  funding  that  would  be  used  for  organizing  and  implementing  a  complex  two- 
stage  legalization  program  could  be  given  to  the  INS  for  enforcement.  The  INS 
needs  our  help.  It  needs  money  for  more  officers,  better  equipment,  and  better  train- 
ing. 

The  United  States  must  also  begin  to  deal  with  those  nations  that  are  prime  send- 
ers of  immigrants.  We  don't  have  to  develop  our  policy  according  to  the  needs  of  the 
Governments  of  Mexico,  or  any  other  Latin  American  nation,  but  if  we  want  to  ef- 
fectively control  our  borders,  we  had  better  consult  with  countries  such  as  Mexico. 
The  ongoing  crisis  in  that  nation  is  providing  even  more  of  a  "push"  factor  for 
illegal  border  crossings.  Perhaps  through  multilateral  programs  we  could  provide 
economic  aid  for  the  Mexicans  to  develop  labor  intensive  industries,  or  we  could  pro- 
vide technical  training  for  Mexican  nationals  to  develop  such  industries,  or  simply 
remain  open  to  suggestions  made  by  the  Mexicans,  and  other  governments  of  na- 
tions that  send  us  the  bulk  of  our  undocumented  persons. 


119 

I  am  not  certain  whether  or  not  a  CBI  styled  approach  to  this  problem  is  best. 
Maybe  we  can  develop  programs  through  aid.  The  Inter- American  Foundation  is 
probably  the  finest  example  of  an  effective  way  of  helping  the  poor  of  Latin  Amer- 
ica to  help  themselves.  Whatever  our  approach,  we  must  consider  the  foreign  policy 
aspect  of  immigration  policy  as  part  of  the  solution. 

Further,  we  should  not  deprive  political  refugees  of  their  day  in  court.  Judicial 
proceedings  for  asylum  cases  can  be  legitimately  streamlined,  but  not  at  the  ex- 
pense of  denying  these  individuals  access  to  our  Federal  judicial  system. 

In  addition,  refugees  from  non-communist  countries  must  be  given  the  same 
chance  as  refugees  from  Communist  countries  for  receiving  asylum.  These  proceed- 
ings should  not  be  based  on  ideological  considerations  but  on  legitimate  political 
persecution. 

I  see  no  need  to  alter  the  family  preference  system.  It  is  my  understandmg  that 
the  difficulties  for  the  INS  under  the  present  system  are  procedural.  If  that  is  the 
case,  additional  funding  might  make  a  difference  in  eliminating  these  difficulties. 
The  family  unit  is  too  important  to  the  basic  fabric  of  our  society  to  undermine  it  in 
any  way. 

I  support  a  new  immigration  policy,  but  one  that  will  not  be  discriminatory 
toward  minorities.  I  feel  it  is  my  responsibility  to  stand  up  for  my  community.  I 
cannot  support  a  law  that  would  further  alienate  or  potentially  discriminate  against 
my,  or  any  other,  minority  community.  All  Americans  need  to  work  together  to 
build  for  the  future. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you  very  much,  Congressman. 

The  Chair  yields  itself  5  minutes  for  some  leadoff  questions. 

With  respect  to  the  judicial  review  of  the  petitions  for  asylum,  as 
the  gentleman  knows,  our  bill  in  the  House  is  much  different  than 
the  Senate's  which  does  not  have  any  review.  In  our  bill  we  guar- 
antee a  judicial  review  for  all  petitioners  for  asylum.  And  even 
those  who  are  apprehended  at  the  shoreline,  who  have  just  entered 
the  country — even  those  have  an  administrative  review.  So  we  did 
guarantee  that  extensive  due  process. 

But  as  far  as  legal  immigration  is  concerned,  as  you  say,  the 
House  bill  doesn't  get  into  that.  It  leaves  the  current  law  in  effect. 

I'm  glad  the  gentleman  mentioned  the  sending  nations'  prob- 
lems, because,  of  course,  they  are  acute  and  they  are  tending  to  get 
worse.  Unless  we  somehow  deal  with  them,  we  have  very  difficult 
times  ahead.  But  based  on  how  the  Caribbean  Basin  Initiative  was 
kicked  around,  it  may  be  very  difficult.  I  certainly  intend  to  do 
what  we  can  in  drafting  our  bill  to  attend  to  those  factors. 

Let  me  go  back  to  something.  Congressman,  on  page  2  which  was 
brought  up  by  the  preceding  witness.  Congressman  Edwards.  That 
is,  you  believe  you  can  solve  the  problem  of  illegal  entry  by  enforc- 
ing existing  labor  laws.  And  you  sav  in  the  second  line  of  your 
paragraph  2  on  page  2,  "This  would'  — that  is,  the  enforcement  of 
existing  labor  laws — "deter  employers  from  hiring  undocumented 
workers." 

I  wonder  why  you  say  that,  or  maybe  you  can  explain  that,  be- 
cause some  of  the  information  we  have  is  that  many  of  the  undocu- 
mented work  for  much  higher  than  the  minimum  wages,  and  in 
working  conditions  which  are  not  afoul  of  OSHA  or  other  labor 
laws. 

So  I  wonder,  if  you  simply  enforce  current  labor  laws,  how  do 
you  deter  an  employer  from  hiring  the  undocumented? 

Mr.  Garcia.  Well,  I  spent  13  years  as  a  State  senator,  and  during 
part  of  that  time  I  served  on  the  Labor  Committee  in  the  State 
senate  in  the  State  of  New  York.  During  this  time,  a  bill  on  em- 
ployer sanctions  was  introduced  and  defeated.  I  worked  hard  to  see 
that  the  bill  would  not  pass.  I  did  not  believe  in  sanctions  then,  nor 


120 

do  I  now.  As  I  said,  they  are  potentially  discriminatory.  In  addi- 
tion, we  found  that  the  cooperation  between  the  State  and  the  Fed- 
eral Government  was  sufficient,  in  many  instances,  to  stop  some  of 
the  illegal  movements  of  some  of  the  employers. 

Of  course,  there  is  no  magic  solution  to  this  problem  because 
whatever  answer  we  come  up  with  in  this  debate  there  will  always 
be  somebody  to  dispute  it. 

It  is  my  sense,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  since  we  were  able,  in  the 
State  of  New  York,  to  hold  down  the  hiring  of  undocumented  per- 
sons to  a  minimum;  we  could  do  this  at  the  Federal  level. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  thank  the  gentleman  for  his  comments.  I  certain- 
ly intend  to  see  that  the  Nation's  labor  laws  are  strengthened.  And 
since  our  bill  probably  will  be  referred  to  other  committees,  as  it 
was  last  year,  we  intend  to  put  something  in  there,  either  in  dol- 
lars or,  in  the  sense  of  this  committee,  signify  that  the  Education 
and  Labor  Committee  give  strong  attention  to  enforcing  and  pro- 
viding personnel  and  the  money  to  the  Labor  Department  for  the 
enforcement  of  the  law. 

But,  again,  there  are  jobs  in  the  country  which  are  now  being 
held  by  the  undocumented  which  are  for  pay  above  the  minimum 
wages  in  conditions  which  are  not  sweatshop  conditions. 

And  those  jobs  seem  to  be  on  the  increase,  as  against  the  sweat- 
shops which  seem  to  be  on  the  decrease.  I  have  some  concern  about 
whether  or  not  simply  the  enforcement  of  labor  laws  would  be 
enough.  But  I  appreciate  the  gentleman's  statement. 

Mr.  Garcia.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  believe  this  problem  is  immense, 
but  I  also  believe  that  the  enforcement  of  the  labor  laws  is  a  viable 
alternative  for  solving  this  problem.  Of  course,  there  are  undocu- 
mented persons  working  for  more  than  the  minimum  wage,  but  by 
and  large,  as  the  failure  of  Operation  Jobs  indicated,  these  people 
hold  jobs  that  are  not  wanted  by  U.S.  citizens. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  thank  the  gentleman. 

The  Chair  yields  5  minutes  to  the  gentleman  from  Michigan,  Mr. 
Crockett. 

Mr.  Crockett.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  really  have  no  ques- 
tions. I  want  to  express  my  appreciation  to  the  Congressman.  He 
touched  on  several  issues  which  bother  me  greatly. 

I  share  his  view  that  if  we  conscientiously  enforce  the  laws  that 
are  presently  on  the  books,  that  would  go  a  long  way  toward  solv- 
ing the  problem.  I  am  told  that  the  total  number  of  border  patrol- 
men that  we  have  is  not  equal  to  the  number  of  capital  police  we 
have  right  here  in  Washington.  So  maybe  we  should  begin  by 
having  some  provision  to  give  cause  for  employment  of  more  per- 
sonnel in  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  thank  you. 

The  gentleman  from  Florida  and  newest  member  of  our  commit- 
tee. We  formally  welcome  Congressman  Smith. 

Mr.  Smith.  Mr.  Garcia,  I  was  very  interested  in  your  remarks.  I 
understand  some  of  the  concerns  you  have,  and  of  course  I  share  a 
lot  of  those  concerns.  What  bothers  me,  however,  is  that  I  come 
from  a  State  that  probably  for  all  intents  and  purposes  is  suffering 
most  in  terms  of  outbreaks  of  large  numbers  of  refugees  in  a  given 
short  period  of  time,  and  we  have  had  some  major  problems.  We 


121 

are  not  like  the  State  of  California  where  there  has  been  a  steady 
stream  or  influx  over  a  number  of  years.  We  have  had  some  major 
outbreaks. 

And  in  light  of  some  of  the  things  you  said,  I  am  curious,  with 
your  suggestions  on  how  to  change  this,  as  to  how  you  would  pre- 
vent large-scale  outbreaks  of  refugee  migration,  a  situation  where 
large  numbers  of  people  are  displaced  from  the  job  market  by 
virtue  of  illegals  being  hired  on  a  large  basis. 

Again,  we  are  not  talking  about  small  outbreaks.  How  would  you 
prevent  the  migration  of  large  numbers  of  less  than  desirable  per- 
sons. Many  good  people  came  to  Florida,  but  many  bad  people 
came  too.  How  would  you  prevent  the  outbreak  of  hiring  people 
who  are  basically  dangerous  to  the  American  type  of  democracy 
and  to  the  criminal  justice  system,  if  you  did  not  have  some 
method  in  place  for  determining  who  they  were  and  trying  to  get  a 
handle  on  them  before  they  created  major  problems  inside  the 
United  States? 

Mr.  Garcia.  Just  let  me  answer  that  in  two  parts,  if  I  may,  be- 
cause I  think  it  is  important  to  consider  what  part  of  the  country 
we  are  talking  about. 

Many  agricultural  States  are  supportive  of  the  H-2  program  con- 
tained in  this  bill  which  imports  foreign  labor.  There  is  no  guaran- 
tee that  these  workers  will  be,  at  times,  obedient  to  the  law.  There 
are  always  risks. 

Further,  in  many  instances  across  the  country,  undocumented 
persons  are  keeping  industries  alive  because  they  are  doing  jobs 
that  U.S.  citizens  do  not  want  to  do. 

Although,  and  I  must  admit  that  you  have  a  special  case  in  the 
State  of  Florida,  but  I  hope  the  foreign  policy  aspect  which  I  men- 
tioned in  my  testimony  would  help  stem  the  tide  of  the  massive  im- 
migration of  Caribbean  and  Latin  American  persons  to  your  State. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Well,  I'm  sorry,  the  gentleman's  time  has  expired. 
I  apologize.  The  majority  leader  is  here. 

Mr.  Smith.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Congressman,  thank  you  very  much,  and  let  me 
also  thank  you  for  your  consistent  expression  of  cooperation. 

Mr.  Garcia.  Before  I  finish,  Mr.  Fish,  who  is  my  colleague  from 
the  State  of  New  York,  said  to  me — and  I,  incidentally,  know  he's 
been  very  sensitive  about  the  issue — "Look,  those  of  you  who  are 
opposed  to  employer  sanctions,  come  up  with  an  alternative  to 
present  to  the  Committee." 

I  would  say  to  you  ,  Mr.  Chairman,  as  the  chairman  of  the  con- 
gressional Hispanic  caucus  I  am  prepared  to  work  with  you  to  see 
if  we  can't  come  up  with  an  alternative  that  would  be  agreeable  to 
the  committee  and  to  the  minority  communities  throughout  Amer- 
ica. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  1  thank  the  gentleman  very  much. 

We  are  graced  by  having  with  us  as  our  next  witness  the  gentle- 
man from  Texas,  the  distinguished  majority  leader  of  the  House  of 
Representatives,  Congressman  Jim  Wright. 

Jim,  without  objection,  any  statement  which  you  may  prepare 
later  will  be  put  in  as  part  of  the  record.  We  will  be  happy  to  hear 
from  you. 


122 

TESTIMONY  OF  HON.  JAMES  C.  WRIGHT,  REPRESENTATIVE  FROM 

THE  12TH  DISTRICT  OF  TEXAS 

Mr.  Wright.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman. 

I  don't  have  a  prepared  statement,  unfortunately.  I  want  to  visit 
with  the  members  of  the  committee,  though,  and  I  am  grateful  for 
the  privilege  you  have  extended  to  me  to  come  and  talk  with  you 
about  some  of  the  dimensions  of  this  problem  and  a  few  of  the  res- 
ervations that  some  of  us  had  had  last  year,  and  maybe  a  sugges- 
tion here  and  there  as  to  how  those  reservations  might  be  allayed 
and  the  program  improved. 

The  first  thing  I  want  to  stress  is  that  I  appreciate  very  much 
the  determination  of  this  committee  to  move  rapidly  and  expedi- 
tiously this  year  to  report  a  bill,  not  waiting  to  the  end  of  the  ses- 
sion. Last  year  we  had  an  unfortunate  situation,  of  which  the 
chairman  is  fully  aware,  and  with  which  he  was,  I  think,  extremely 
patient.  It  developed,  unfortunately,  that  there  were  some  Mem- 
bers of  the  Congress  who  had  wanted  to  testify  and  make  some  rec- 
ommendations v/ith  regard  to  the  formulation  of  the  program  who 
didn't  feel  they  had  been  given  that  opportunity  prior  to  reporting 
of  the  bill.  That  generated  kind  of  an  atmosphere  of  hostility  which 
doesn't  need  to  exist. 

I  am  not  suggesting  that  it  will  be  possible  for  this  or  any  other 
committee  to  put  together  the  kind  of  bill  that  will  be  universally 
embraced  by  everybody  in  the  House.  I  do  want  to  suggest,  howev- 
er, that  I  appreciate  your  efforts  to  do  so  to  the  extent  that  it  is 
possible,  and  I  would  like  to  pledge  to  you  what  cooperation  and 
help  I  might  extend  as  the  majority  leader. 

It  definitely  is  not  my  purpose  just  to  retard  any  legislation.  I 
don't  think  the  problem  is  going  to  be  solved  just  by  rejecting  all 
efforts  to  reform  our  hodgepodge  system. 

There  is  a  very  real  problem  that  exists.  As  the  members  of  this 
committee  are  aware,  its  dimensions  are  growing;  they  are  not 
shrinking. 

I  don't  know  how  many  undocumented  workers  or  illegal  aliens 
there  may  be  in  this  country.  Estimates  vary.  The  committee  prob- 
ably has  as  wide  a  range  of  estimates  as  one  might  expect.  I  don't 
even  know  how  many  there  are  in  my  community.  I  know  there 
are  more  than  is  commonly  supposed;  there  are  more  than  I  be- 
lieve were  there  2  years  ago.  I  have  not  counted  them.  It  isn't  pos- 
sible to  count  them.  They  don't  come  forward  to  be  counted.  They 
are  furtive;  they  are  fearful.  They  are  more  often  the  victims  of 
crime  than  perpetrators  of  crime — those  in  my  area. 

I  would  suggest  to  the  gentleman  from  Florida  that  while  I  am 
fully  aware  there  are  some  undesirable  people  who  have  come  ille- 
gally into  this  country,  there  are  also  a  preponderance,  in  my  per- 
sonal experience,  of  very  well  motivated  people  who  want  only  a 
job,  who  are  unable  to  find  any  kind  of  productive  work  in  their 
native  countries.  In  many  cases  this  is  Mexico  and  those  Central 
American  countries  lying  south  of  Mexico  through  which  some  of 
these  people  came  to  the  United  States.  They  have  come  here  as  to 
the  promised  land,  seeking  only  the  opportunity  to  exchange  the 
work  of  their  hands  to  the  sweat  of  their  backs  or  their  brows  for 


123 

wages,  which  they  can  exchange  for  food  and  a  Hvelihood  for  their 
people. 

For  the  most  part  I  think  they  are  not  bad  people.  For  the  most 
part  I  think  they  are  decent  and  good  people.  But  they  are  fright- 
ened people.  They  are  victims  of  unscrupulous  people,  branded  in 
my  State  coyotes,  who  make  a  profession  of  preying  upon  the 
misery  of  the  undocumented  worker.  They  bring  these  people  in 
furtively  and  illegally  in  truckloads.  They  fmd  places  for  them  to 
live,  in  habitations  too  crowded  for  human  health  and  human 
safety.  They  provide  for  them  foodstuffs  at  prices  outrageously 
high.  They  arrange  bogus  credentials  for  these  people  at  a  price 
outrageously  wrong.  They  act  as  their  employing  agents  and  get 
jobs  for  them  using  these  bogus  credentials. 

That  parasitic  group  in  our  society  are  people  for  whom  I  have 
utterly  no  sympathy  whatever,  those  who  exploit  the  misery  of  the 
undocumented  worker. 

As  a  result  of  this,  there  has  grown  up  a  subculture  in  many  of 
our  American  communities — many  of  them  in  California,  many  of 
them  in  Texas,  Florida  no  doubt,  and  perhaps  in  Arizona  and  New 
Mexico. 

But  there  are  2,000  miles  of  border,  and  there  just  isn't  any  way 
in  which  we  could  employ  enough  border  patrolmen  effectively  and 
adequately  to  control  those  2,000  miles. 

Surely  we  never  would  want  to  erect  the  kind  of  a  physical  bar- 
rier between  our  country  and  our  neighbors  to  the  south  that  is 
epitomized  in  the  Great  Wall  of  China  which,  in  an  effort  to  pro- 
tect a  culture  from  the  intrusion  of  alien  influences,  actually  insu- 
lated that  country  and  dwarfed  its  capacity  to  grow.  Surely  we 
don't  want  to  erect  the  kind  of  physical  barriers  that  characterize 
the  line  between  East  and  West  Berlin.  We  are  not  that  kind  of 
country.  We  are  not  that  kind  of  neighbor.  There  isn't  any  physical 
way  that  we  can  adequately  patrol  the  2,000  miles  of  border  that 
we  share  with  our  neighbor,  Mexico. 

So  what  can  we  do  about  it?  How  can  we  at  least  reduce,  if  not 
eliminate,  these  social  problems  that  come  in  the  wake  of  a  flood  of 
people  who  come  to  our  country,  most  of  them  unable  to  speak  the 
language,  most  of  them  ready  to  be  victimized  if  it  means  only  that 
they  can  get  a  job  and  work,  many  of  them  truly  exploited.  Because 
of  their  vulnerability  to  exploitation,  they  do  sometimes  depress 
wages  for  local  U.S.  citizens  because  they  will  work  for  less  than 
the  minimum  wage  and  in  conditions  that  wouldn't  be  tolerated  by 
an  American  citizen. 

Well,  let  me  address  myself  to  only  three  phases  which  I  know 
are  very  difficult  of  solution. 

The  first  is  the  question  of  amnesty.  The  second  is  the  question 
of  employer  sanctions.  The  third  is  the  question  of  a  guest  worker 
program. 

With  regard  to  amnesty,  I  believe  that  some  form  of  amnesty 
must  be  extended.  I  want  to  commend  the  committee  for  its  efforts 
to  create  an  honorable  system  of  amnesty.  I  do  not  believe  that  a 
blanket  amnesty,  available  to  everyone  indiscriminately,  who  may 
have  been  able  to  evade  or  avoid  the  law  for  a  given  period  of  time, 
is  necessarily  the  right  way  to  go. 


124 

The  right  to  be  a  permanent  resident  of  the  United  States  ought 
to  carry  with  it  some  concomitant  sense  of  responsibility.  I  am  not 
suggesting  that  in  order  to  qualify  for  this  amnesty  one  must  pass 
a  difficult  examination,  nor  am  I  suggesting  that  someone  has  to 
prove  a  great  many  things.  But  I  think  as  a  minimum  we  ought  to 
require  that  people  come  forward  and  identify  themselves  in  order 
to  qualify  for  the  amnesty.  Let  them  demonstrate  that  they  are 
able  to  hold  a  job  and  have  held  a  job  and  are  not  likely,  therefore, 
to  be  wards  upon  the  State  and  recipients  of  the  kinds  of  welfare 
costs  that  would  burden  our  country  if  they  are  without  marketa- 
ble skills. 

Third,  that  they  are  without  serious  blemish  in  infractions  of  the 
law,  that  they  haven't  been  guilty  of  serious  legal  infractions.  I'm 
not  talking  about  a  parking  ticket  or  an  automobile  accident  that 
didn't  result  in  injury.  I  am  not  talking  about  petty  things.  But  I 
am  talking  about  the  kinds  of  things  that  would  make  a  citizen  sus- 
pect, someone  we  really  wouldn't  want  as  a  permanent  citizen  of 
this  country. 

The  final  qualification  I  think  we  ought  to  apply  is  a  demonstrat- 
ed willingness  to  at  least  try  to  learn  the  language.  I  think  we 
ought  to  require  that  they  make  an  effort  to  learn  English  and,  if 
they  have  children,  that  they  make  a  very  earnest  commitment 
that  their  children  will  learn  English. 

I  believe  in  bilingual  education.  I  do  not  believe  in  it,  however,  as 
a  crutch.  I  believe  in  it  as  a  bridge.  If  it  is  used  as  a  crutch  to 
permit  children  of  an  alien  culture  and  an  alien  tongue  to  cope 
through  school  without  learning  the  language  of  the  marketplace 
in  the  United  States,  we  do  those  children  no  favor  because  we 
have  not  equipped  them  with  what  is  necessary  for  them  to  be  pro- 
ductive residents  of  this  country. 

So  it  seems  to  me  that  those  are  the  basic  requirements  that  I'd 
like  to  see  placed  as  minimum  requisites  for  an  amnesty  eligibility. 

Beyond  that,  I  would  extend  the  amnesty,  because  I  think  it  is 
very  important  that  we  make  these  people  feel  that  there  is  safety 
for  them  if  they  come  forward  and  work  with  the  Government  of 
the  United  States,  that  they  no  longer  have  to  be  furtive,  that  once 
they  have  come  forward  and  identified  themselves  they  no  longer 
have  to  fear  anything,  that  they  no  longer  have  to  tolerate  being 
victims  of  crime  for  fear  that  if  they  report  those  crimes  they  will 
be  unceremoniously  deported  from  our  country  and  the  perpetrator 
of  the  crime  go  free. 

The  second  thing  I'd  like  to  address  myself  to  is  the  question  of 
employer  sanctions. 

I  \yould  encourage  the  members  of  the  committee  to  take  Bob 
Garcia  up  on  his  offer  to  see  if  there  is  a  way  in  which  those  who 
represent  the  Hispanic  caucus  could  provide  safeguards  in  any 
system  of  employer  sanctions  against  the  inadvertent  and  unin- 
tended discrimination  against  American  citizens,  U.S.  citizens  of 
Hispanic  origin.  That  is  a  very  real  fear  among  many  of  our  citi- 
zens. Perhaps  one  cannot  comprehend  it  fully  unless  he  or  she  is  of 
the  Hispanic  culture. 

Kika  de  la  Garza,  our  colleague,  explained  it  to  me  this  way.  He 
said,  "Jim,  you  and  I  are  going  to  apply  for  a  job.  There's  one  job. 
Let  us  assume  that  you  and  I  are  equally  well  qualified  for  the  job. 


125 

The  ernployer,  if  he  is  fearful  of  sanctions  against  employing  an  il- 
legal alien,  will  choose  you,  Jim.  He  will  just  take  the  safe  way  out, 
because  he  will  look  at  me  and  he'll  think,  'There  may  be  an  out- 
side chance  that  that  fellow  is  a  wetback.'  " 

That's  true,  I  guess.  And  those  of  us  who  are  maybe  Anglo- 
Saxon,  Irish,  Scotch,  Germanic,  whatever  other  cultures  that  exist, 
and  have  surnames  that  do  not  suggest  that  we  may  have  come  re- 
cently from  one  of  the  countries  which  produces  most  of  the 
undocumented  workers,  do  not  stop  to  realize  that  there  is  an  un- 
spoken reticence  probably  lurking  in  the  minds  of  a  prospective 
employer  which  makes  him,  perhaps  even  unconsciously,  reject  the 
applicant  for  the  job  who  has  an  Hispanic  surname  or  who  may 
appear  to  be  of  an  Hispanic  culture.  And  that  really  isn't  fair. 

So  if  we  can  work  with  the  Hispanic  caucus  and  with  others  to 
see  if  there  is  a  means  of  developing  a  guarantee  that  will  not 
invade  the  individual  freedoms  of  our  working  force  of  American 
citizens,  I  think  it  would  be  worth  doing. 

Finally,  with  regard  to  a  guest  worker  program,  I  am  aware  of 
apprehensions  that  exist  among  many  people  about  a  revival  of  the 
bracero  program  or  something  of  that  general  character.  There  are 
good  things  to  be  said  for  the  bracero  program,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
as  well  as  bad.  It  provided  a  minimum  standard  of  treatment  for 
those  people  who  came  here.  It  required  that  they  leave  after  their 
period  of  employment  had  been  completed.  It  helped  our  relations 
with  the  neighboring  country  of  Mexico  and,  indeed,  assisted  the 
economy  of  Mexico,  because  we  worked  as  partners  with  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Mexico  in  the  creation  of  the  program.  Mexico  assisted 
in  the  recruitment  of  those  people  who  came  under  that  program. 

There  is  a  very  interesting  corollary  between  the  number  of 
people  who  came  legally  in  the  guest  worker  program  and  the 
number  of  people  apprehended  as  illegal  entrants  into  the  United 
States.  From  the  beginning  of  that  program  in  the  late  1950's,  as  I 
recall,  the  number  of  people  illegally  apprehended  in  this  country 
and  eligible  for  deportation  was  running  about  200,000  annually. 
The  first  group  admitted  legally  amounted  to  about  30,000— that  is 
not  counting  servants — and  then  those  numbers  changed  gradually, 
but  inexorably,  and  they  had  an  undeniable  relationship  one  to  the 
other. 

In  the  last  year  of  the  program,  some  300,000  or  400,000  people 
were  admitted  legally  as  guest  workers,  and  the  number  of  those 
apprehended  as  illegal  entrants  into  our  country  has  dwindled  to 
maybe  30,000.  The  positions  are  reversed. 

If  we  assume,  as  I  think  we  must,  that  whatever  we  do  there  are 
going  to  be  a  certain  number  of  people  coming  into  this  country,  at 
least  across  that  2,000  mile  border  of  which  I  have  already  spoken, 
isn't  it  better  that  they  come  under  conditions  agreed  to  by  their 
country  and  by  our  country,  that  it  be  as  a  result  of  a  joint  part- 
nership arrangement  worked  out  between  our  countries,  that  we 
have  the  assistance  of  our  neighbors  in  Mexico  and  the  Govern- 
ment of  Mexico  in  seeing  to  it  that  they  return  when  their  period 
of  employment  contract  is  over,  and  that  they  not  be  subjected  to 
mistreatment,  that  they  have  some  court  to  which  they  can  go  to 
see  to  it  that  they  are  not  exploited,  that  there  are  certain  mini- 
mum health  standards  and  certain  minimum  education  standards 


126 

for  their  children,  and  certainly  minimum  pay  standards  and  living 
standards  provided  for  them. 

Beyond  that,  it  seems  that  it  would  be  a  very  beneficial  thing  in 
our  relations  with  Mexico  if  we  were  to  dignify  them  by  asking 
them  to  sit  down  and  help  work  out  the  details  of  this  kind  of  pro- 
gram with  us  rather  than  our  just  unilaterally  deciding  the  details 
and  forcing  it  upon  them  as  a  fait  accompli. 

Well,  that's  about  the  extent  of  my  suggestions,  Mr.  Chairman.  I 
would  encourage  the  committee  to  think  upon  those  ideas.  What- 
ever you  do  isn't  going  to  please  everybody,  but  I  am  grateful  to 
you  and  the  members  of  your  committee  for  the  efforts  you  are  ex- 
tending. I  encourage  you  to  report  out  a  bill  early  enough  that  it 
can  go  to  the  floor  not  in  a  last-minute  crush,  and  to  that  end  I 
would  offer  you  my  help. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Mr.  Majority  Leader,  thank  you  very  much.  I  want 
to  thank  you  for  a  very  well  prepared  statement,  even  without 
notes,  which  is  phenomenal.  But  also  I  thank  you  for  your  state- 
ment, which  I  do  appreciate,  that  you  will  be  disposed  to  allowing 
our  bill  to  reach  the  floor.  I  think  it  has  been  said  by  my  colleague. 
Senator  Simpson,  many  times  that  the  bill  can  go  away  but  the 
problem  will  not  go  away.  You  have  said  that  today.  I  suggest  that 
the  problem  cannot  be  solved  by  ignoring  it  and  by  sidetracking 
legislation,  even  where  the  legislation  is  admittedly  imperfect. 

In  an  effort  to  try  to  improve  an  imperfect  piece  of  legislation, 
the  majority  leader  has  put  his  finger  on  three  elements  which,  of 
course,  are  the  centerpiece  of  the  bill  and  cause  a  considerable 
amount  of  torment  to  our  members. 

Let  me  perhaps  start  from  the  last  and  work  back. 

On  the  proposal  to  allow  workers  from  abroad  to  come  in  for 
temporary  periods  of  time,  the  people  who  helped  draft  this  bill 
were  faced  with  the  choice  of  either  going  for  a  new  program — it's 
called  a  guest  worker  program,  as  the  gentleman  said — or  using 
something  which  is  on  the  books  already,  the  H-2  program, 
through  which  Jamaicans  and  people  from  the  Caribbean  enter 
New  York  and  other  States  in  the  union  to  do  various  agricultural 
tasks  for  a  limited  period  of  time  and  then  go  home.  So  we  either 
create  a  new  program  or  we  try  to  remodel,  refresh,  and  enhance 
the  existing  program.  We  elected  the  latter  course. 

I  will  ask  the  gentleman:  Would  he  believe  there  is  a  potential 
solution  to  the  problem  lying  within  the  H-2  mechanism,  or  is  the 
gentleman,  having  studied  the  program,  of  the  belief  that  we  do 
need  to  have  a  more  full  and  more  expanded  program  of  temporary 
workers? 

Mr.  Wright.  I  think  in  the  long  run  the  latter  might  be  desir- 
able, to  create  a  new  program  designed  expressly  for  present  needs. 
But  I  appreciate  the  problem  that  confronts  the  committee.  There 
is  an  existing  mechanism  which  is  much  easier  to  use,  even  if  you 
refine  it  to  some  degree. 

I  would  suggest  only  that  we  try  as  best  we  can  to  ensure  that 
those  admitted  as  guest  workers  be  given  the  dignity  of  being  rec- 
ognized as  guests  of  this  country,  that  we  do  what  we  can  to  make 
certain  that  they  do  not  take  jobs  for  which  U.S.  citizens  are  avail- 
able and  ready  to  work,  and  that  we  have  the  cooperation  of  the 
country  from  which  they  came,  in  this  case  Mexico. 


127 

I  am  not  prepared  to  discuss  with  any  sense  of  authoritativeness 
people  coming  from  other  countries.  I  think  I  do  know  a  Uttle  bit 
about  people  coming  over  from  Mexico  and  a  little  bit  about  the 
history  of  our  relations  with  the  Government  of  Mexico. 

I  would  try  to  invite  them  to  come  and  be  a  part  somehow  in  the 
mechanism.  You  might  create  a  mechanism  for  the  formulation  be- 
tween our  State  and  agricultural  departments,  let  us  say,  and  the 
equivalencies  in  the  Republic  of  Mexico  for  changes  and  any  expan- 
sions that  might  occur  in  this  program.  You  might  just  want  to  go 
that  far. 

Even  that,  it  seems  to  me,  would  do  good  things  for  the  state  ot 
our  relations  with  Mexico. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Will  you  excuse  me? 

Mr.  Wright.  Surely. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  appreciate  what  the  gentleman  has  said,  and  one 
of  the  problems  we  had  in  electing  to  go  with  an  enhancement  and 
moderization  of  the  H^  program  was  the  fact  that  the  earlier 
guest  worker  program  had  become  the  victim  of  perhaps  its  own 
success.  It  became  too  big  and  cumbersome  and  people  didn't  go 
back,  and  there  were  evidences  of  mischief  on  the  part  of  some  of 
the  employers  and  mishandling  of  the  people.  The  gentleman 
having  lived  in  Texas  where  this  program  was  at  its  zenith,  do  you 
believe  there  are  ways  to  deal  with  those  problems  to  keep  a  new 
guest  worker  program  from  declining  and  becoming  the  kind  of  in- 
effective and  really  mischievous  program  that  was  known  as  the 
bracero  program? 

Mr.  Wright.  Well,  I  have  to  believe  that  there  are.  As  far  as  the 
bracero  program  is  concerned,  at  its  zenith  it  was  the  second  larg- 
est producer  of  national  income  to  the  Republic  of  Mexico.  It  as- 
sumed an  importance  of  that  magnitude  to  that  country.  And  be- 
cause jobs  were  available  legally  by  working  with  their  own  gov- 
ernment, their  own  local  officials,  they  didn't  find  themselves  so 
tempted  to  flout  the  law. 

I  think  it  can  be  done.  I  don't  minimize  the  difficulties. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  thank  the  gentleman  for  his  suggestion.  It  is  cer- 
tainly an  interesting  proposal. 

The  Chair's  5  minutes  have  expired. 

The  gentleman  from  Florida  is  recognized  for  5  minutes. 

Mr.  Smith.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

The  gentleman  from  Texas  has  certainly  been  very  cogent  in  pre- 
senting the  areas  which  are  of  greatest  concern.  I  think,  however, 
that  Congressman  Garcia  to  some  degree  put  his  finger  on  the 
issue  when  he  said  that  unfortunately  there  are  places  in  this 
country  which  have  different  kinds  of  problems. 

I  think  that  is  one  of  the  aspects  of  this  particular  legislative  in- 
quiry that  goes  begging  to  some  degree.  You  yourself,  Mr.  Wright, 
have  indicated  that  you  are  very  familiar  with  the  problems  relat- 
ing to  the  Texas-Mexican  situation,  having  lived  through  many, 
many  political  years.  And  I  am  not  so  sure  that  ultimately  we  can 
address  all  these  problems  in  this  one  particular  vehicle,  they 
being  of  such  different  nature  and  quality. 

But  I  would  like  to  ask  you  just  a  few  small  questions  relating  to 
those  which  are  of  gravest  concern  to  me. 


128 

Even  assuming  that  we  were  to  adopt  the  suggestions  that  you 
made  with  reference  to  amnesty  and  were  able  to  come  out  with 
some  form  of  amnesty  provisions  that  most  of  the  Members  of  Con- 
gress could  live  with  and  felt  were  fair  to  their  own  constituents, 
how  could  you  prevent,  literally  prevent,  the  problem  of  having 
communicated  to  the  world  Congressman  Garcia's  thought  that  we 
should  make  it  plain  that  it's  a  one-time  shot  for  amnesty?  How 
could  you  communicate  to  the  world  that  in  fact  this  wouldn't 
happen  again  4  or  5  years  down  the  road  when  all  the  people  who 
are  grandfathered  in  on  the  amnesty  communicate  to  their  home 
country  and  their  relatives  that  they  have  attained  a  large  degree 
of  legality? 

Wouldn't  that  in  effect  provoke  additional  types  of  new  waves  of 
refugees  coming  here  for  the  purpose  of  attempting  to  get  in  under 
a  new  program  which,  even  if  it  didn't  exist,  they  assumed  would 
come  at  sometime  down  the  road  in  the  future?  Isn't  that  a  major 
concern  no  matter  what  we  do  to  make  amnesty  fair  and  legitimate 
and  protect  the  interest  of  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Wright.  Larry,  I  think  it  is.  It  is  a  legitimate  concern.  I 
don't  believe  there  is  any  absolute  way  in  which  we  can  guarantee 
that  nobody  is  going  to  get  the  impression  we  will  do  it  again, 
either  as  suggested  by  Mr.  Garcia  or  in  the  manner  which  I  have 
suggested. 

I  think  we  ought  to  try  to  do  that.  We  should  try  to  say  this  is 
one  time,  that  we  are  doing  this  because  these  people  have  been 
here  for  certain  periods  of  time  and  some  of  them  qualify  to 
remain.  And  all  those  who  qualify  to  remain,  who  haven't  done 
anything  illegal  in  our  country  and  are  well-motivated  and  want  to 
stay  here  and  are  trying  to  accustom  themselves  to  our  laws  and 
abide  by  our  laws  and  learn  our  language  and  teach  their  children 
in  ways  that  will  make  them  productive  residents  of  the  United 
States — we  want  to  legitimize  them,  and  we  are  not  going  to  do 
that  again;  we  don't  expect  to  do  that  again. 

I  don't  know  that  we  can  give  a  guarantee  that  we  won't  have  to 
do  it  again  sometime  50  years  from  now.  I  don't  know  the  answer 
to  that.  It  would  be  foolish  for  us  in  this  Congress  to  try  to  bind 
some  future  Congress. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  If  the  gentleman  would  yield  to  me  for  a  moment — 
he  still  has  a  few  seconds  left.  In  the  GAO  report  which  was  done 
last  year,  they  circulated  two  countries  who  had  problems  like 
ours,  Canada  and  France,  to  get  some  idea  of  what  the  response 
would  be  to  an  amnesty  offer. 

Interestingly  enough,  in  Canada  where  they  suspected  some 
200,000  would  qualify,  a  total  of  20,000,  only  10  percent,  actually 
put  themselves  forward  for  this  activity.  In  France  where  they  ex- 
pected at  least  300,000  to  qualify,  there  were  a  total  of  80,000  who 
took  advantage  of  the  offer. 

So  there  are  those  who  testified  before  the  committee  last  year 
who  say  the  problem  is  not  too  many  people  coming  out  for  it,  but 
that  there  may  be  too  few.  You  will  have  to  have  an  outreach  pro- 
gram to  get  the  folks  at  least  in  the  position  where  their  bona  fides 
would  be  examined. 


129 

So  it  is  an  interesting  point.  You  see  it  both  ways,  both  the  fact 
that  there  might  be  too  many,  and  the  evidence  is  in  some  cases 
there  may  be  too  few. 

So  I  thank  the  gentleman  for  his  question. 

Let  me  take  the  prerogative  of  the  Chair  and  give  myself  per- 
haps 2  minutes  and  then  yield  to  the  gentleman  from  New  York 
who  has  now  joined  us. 

Let  me  ask  a  question  on  a  third  point  that  the  gentleman  from 
Texas  brought  up,  that  dealing  with  employer  sanctions,  whether 
the  gentleman  is  of  the  belief  that  we  could,  by  enforcing  the  labor 
laws  alone,  absent  any  activity  in  this  field  of  employer  sanctions, 
solve  the  problem  he  very  aptly  described  of  people  who  exist  in  an 
exploitable  condition  and  are  exploited  as  a  result  of  that? 

Mr.  Wright.  No,  I  think  it  would  solve  part  of  the  problem  but  I 
don't  think  it  would  solve  all  of  the  problem.  While  I  believe  it 
should  be  done  as  a  protection  for  all  human  beings,  I  think  it 
would  be  expecting  too  much  to  assume  that  an  effort  to  enforce 
those  laws  more  effectively  would  solve  the  entire  problem.  I  just 
don't  think  it  will. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Let  me  ask  the  gentleman  a  second  question.  One 
of  the  reasons  that  the  authors  of  our  bill  put  in  the  paperwork 
requirement  for  all  employers — that  is,  every  employer  has  to 
check  the  bona  fides  of  all  prospective  employees — was  to  guard 
against  the  fear  the  gentleman  brought  up,  which  is  discrimina- 
tion. 

Would  the  gentleman  have  any  belief  on  what  would  happen  if 
you  removed  the  paperwork  responsibility  and  left  the  employer 
sanctions  and  targeted  it,  in  a  sense  as  we  have  done,  by  having  it 
apply  not  to  small  employers  but  to  large  employers?  How  would 
the  gentleman  feel? 

Mr.  Wright.  I  think  if  you  are  going  to  do  it,  it  really  ought  to 
have  some  cutoff.  There  are,  throughout  the  United  States,  as  all  of 
us  are  aware,  an  awful  lot  of  small  business  people  to  whom  it  be- 
comes just  terribly  burdensome  if  you  require  a  lot  of  paperwork. 
And  they  are  afflicted  with  an  awful  lot  of  paperwork  as  it  is. 
Today  the  small  operations — family  businesses,  small  retail  estab- 
lishments, and  things  of  that  kind — if  required  to  do  a  lot  of  addi- 
tional paperwork,  I  think  would  probably  find  it  onerous  and  costly 
and  troublesome. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  thank  the  gentleman,  and  I  recognize  for  5  min- 
utes the  gentleman  from  New  York. 

Mr.  Fish.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  I  welcome  the  distin- 
guished majority  leader.  I  thank  him  for  his  remarks  with  respect 
to  moving  this  bill.  We  are  starting  early  in  the  first  session  and 
not  in  the  second  session  as  we  did  in  the  last  Congress.  I  hope  this 
will  leave  time  for  a  full  dialog  and  impetus  of  the  kind  to  move 
the  bill.  I  would  secondly  like  to  thank  you  for  your  comments  on 
legalization,  and  I'm  sure  that  will  be  given  serious  consideration. 

With  respect  to  employer  sanctions,  which  are  viewed  by  the  au- 
thors as  the  key  to  enforcement  of  this  legislation,  if  I  understood 
your  testimony  it  was  that  you  would  hope  we  would  work  out  with 
Members  of  Congress  who  are  vitally  concerned  with  this  issue 
safeguards  that  would  do  the  best  job  possible  to  see  to  it  that  dis- 


130 

crimination  does  not  occur,  or  if  it  does  occur  we  discover  it  and 
root  it  out  and  punish  it. 

Is  that  a  fair  statement? 

Mr.  Wright.  That  is  exactly  right,  and  not  only  that  it  be  pun- 
ished. That  isn't  really  so  much  the  problem  in  my  opinion,  willful 
discrimination  based  upon  a  malicious  intent;  rather,  subconscious 
discrimination  based  on  an  impulse  of  self-protection.  I  think  the 
fear  may  probably  exist  among  employers  that  would  be  almost 
subliminal  that  they  might  be  unwittingly  employing  some  alien  if 
they  give  the  nod  to  somebody  with  an  Hispanic  surname,  let  us 
say,  somebody  named  de  la  Garza  instead  of  somebody  named 
Wright;  somebody  named  Garcia  instead  of  somebody  named  Fish. 

That's  the  kind  of  thing  which  it  is  very  hard  for  a  government 
to  guard  against,  but  I  think  it's  part  of  human  nature. 

Mr.  Fish.  Well,  I  thank  our  colleague. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  thank  the  gentleman  from  New  York. 

The  gentleman  from  California,  our  ranking  member,  has  joined 
us. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I'm  sorry  I  wasn't  here 
to  hear  your  testimony,  but  I  am  certainly  interested  and  I  will 
look  at  it. 

One  of  the  things  I  am  pleased  about  is  that  you  have  spoken  so 
forcefully  for  the  need  for  us  to  have  some  ongoing  consultation 
process  with  Mexico,  because  I  think  one  of  the  major  problems  we 
had  with  the  old  bracero  program,  in  addition  to  maltreatment  of 
many  of  the  people  who  were  involved,  was  a  lack  of  close  coopera- 
tion between  ourselves  and  the  Government  of  Mexico.  We  started 
the  program  without  their  consultation;  we  got  rid  of  the  program 
without  their  consultation.  We  have  done  many  things  in  terms  of 
immigration  without  consulting  our  closest  neighbors  and  those 
who  are  most  immediately  impacted. 

And  I  certainly  will  be  working  on  this  committee  to  see  if  we 
can  somehow  have  a  formal  consultative  process  as  part  of  this  bill. 
And  I  know  you  have,  in  comments  we  have  had  together,  shared 
that  feeling,  and  I  look  forward  to  working  with  you  on  that  partic- 
ular part  of  the  project. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  thank  the  gentleman. 

I  thank  the  majority  leader. 

Mr.  Wright.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  gentleman  is  excused  and  I  appreciate  your 
help. 

We  have  three  other  Members  here  now — Congressman  Towns, 
Congressman  Shaw,  and  Congressman  Brown.  Would  you  gentle- 
men mind  stepping  forward  as  a  panel  rather  than  individually? 
Would  that  suit  each  purpose?  Would  that  be  all  right?  We  do  have 
a  problem  with  the  Attorney  General's  time,  and  we  want  to  make 
sure  he  isn't  overly  encumbered. 

Why  don't  you  all  come  forward,  and  when  Congressman  Brown 
comes  in  he  can  just  join  the  panel. 

Gentlemen,  we  might  proceed.  In  the  order  we  had  them  listed 
here  on  our  chart,  we  had  Congressman  Brown,  then  Congressman 
Shaw,  and  Congressman  Towns. 

So  perhaps.  Clay,  you  might  proceed.  And  without  objection,  your 
statement  will  be  made  a  part  of  the  record,  and  you  may  proceed 


131 

however  you  wish.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  we  are  short  of  time, 
we'd  appreciate  it  if  you'd  take  about  5  minutes. 

STATEMENTS  OF  HON.  E.  CLAY  SHAW,  JR.,  REPRESENTATIVE 
FROM  THE  12TH  DISTRICT  OF  FLORIDA;  HON.  ELDOLPHUS 
TOWNS,  REPRESENTATIVE  FROM  THE  IITH  DISTRICT  OF  NEW 
YORK;  AND  HON.  HANK  BROWN,  REPRESENTATIVE  FROM  THE 
FOURTH  DISTRICT  OF  COLORADO 

Mr.  Shaw.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  will  submit  the  written 
statement  and  ask  that  it  be  included  as  a  part  of  the  record. 

We  will  be  hearing  from  and  we  have  heard  from  many  of  the 
special  interest  groups,  and  of  course  there  is  nothing  wrong  with 
special  interest  groups  being  heard  from,  and  part  of  our  job  here 
in  the  Congress  is  to  weed  out  what  is  best  for  the  American 

people.  1    u  i. 

I'd  like  to  for  just  one  moment,  however,  point  out  the  mail  that 
I  have  received  in  my  office  with  regard  to  this  particular  bill.  It  is 
a  vitally  important  bill. 

I  have  said  before  and  I'll  say  again,  I  think  one  of  the  tragedies 
of  the  last  Congress  is  that  the  tremendous  job  that  this  subcom- 
mittee and  our  full  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  did  in  turning  out 
a  meaningful  immigration  bill,  the  first  one  in  30  years,  did  not 
result  in  a  bill  being  passed  by  the  Congress.  The  treatment  this 
Congress  gave  to  that  bill  in  debating  it,  really  only  after  dark,  and 
opening  it  up  to  some  300  amendments,  I  think  was  nothing  short 
of  shabby  and  nothing  short  of  a  tragedy. 

We  have  a  community  in  south  Florida— I  think  all  of  you  gen- 
tlemen have  traveled  there;  several  of  us  were  there  just  last 
week— and  we  know  the  tremendous  problems  that  that  communi- 
ty has  experienced  in  digging  its  way  out  from  under  the  problems 
of  illegal  immigration,  and  the  economic  and  the  criminal  and  the 
social  problems  that  that  brings  to  a  community.  It  can  ravage  a 
complete  area,  and  it  certainly  has  put  a  tremendous  hardship  on 
the  people  of  south  Florida. 

I  guess  the  good  news,  though,  is  that  the  people  from  south  Flor- 
ida are  digging  out  from  under  it— despite  the  fact  that  it  appeared 
a  year  or  2  ago  to  be  almost  an  incurable  situation.  The  good 
people  of  south  Florida  are  coming  out  of  it.  And  you  can  see  that 
the  economy  is  moving,  the  jobless  rate  is  beginning  to  fall,  and  for 
the  first  time  in  Miami  and  south  Florida  we  are  seeing  the  crime 
rate  fall  significantly. 

I  would  like  to,  if  I  may,  just  read  excerpts  from  some  of  the  let- 
ters that  I  have  received: 

Dear  Congressman:  We  did  have  a  big  disappointment  that  the  Simpson-Mazzoli 
bill  wasn't  strengthened  and  passed  by  Congress.  I  wrote  to  Tip  O'Neill,  Peter 
Rodino  and  Mr.  Wright  and  others  for  a  strict  reform  bill.  We  are  so  disappointed. 

Dear  Congressman:  I  have  lived  in  Florida  since  1962.  Back  then  I  used  to  be 
teased  about  being  a  "walking  Chamber  of  Commerce"  for  Fort  Lauderdale.  Today  I 
want  to  leave  here  because  I  think  what  happened  to  Miami  is  creeping  up  here.  I 
find  myself  fearful,  angry,  and  frustrated  and  surely  that  is  no  way  to  live. 

Dear  Congressman:  I  fear  that  our  problems  here  are  being  forgotten  by  the  Con- 
gress. 

Dear  Congressman:  It  is  frightening  that  Congress  can't  understand  the  danger 
of  the  situation  and  move  quickly  to  drastically  reform  our  present  laws. 


132 

The  tone  of  these  letters  goes  on  and  on  and  on.  I  would  remind 
the  members  of  this  committee,  as  well  as  the  entire  Congress  that 
the  special  interest  group  that  we  are  here  to  represent  is  a  cross- 
section  of  the  American  people.  The  cross-section  of  the  American 
people  is  crying  out: 

Again  regain  control  of  our  borders.  Control  the  illegal  immigration  coming  into 
this  country.  We  are  a  sovereign  Nation,  and  as  a  sovereign  Nation  we  must  control 
our  borders. 

I  thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 
[The  complete  statement  follows:] 

Statement  of  Hon.  E.  Clay  Shaw,  Jr. 

One  of  the  greatest  disappointments  of  my  first  term  in  office  was  the  failure  of 
the  97th  Congress  to  enact  immigration  reform  legislation.  I  must  say  it  certainly 
wasn't  for  a  lack  of  trying.  The  efforts  of  this  Subcommittee,  and  in  particular  the 
Chairman  and  Ranking  Minority  Member,  were  tremendous.  And  since  illegal  im- 
migration is  cited  as  the  most  important  problem  in  my  district,  it  was  particularly 
heartening  to  see  so  many  members  so  dedicated  to  solving  the  problem. 

Yet,  despite  these  vigorous  efforts,  the  bill  did  not  pass  and  many  of  us  in  Con- 
gress were  very  disappointed,  but  we  were  not  alone  in  our  disappointment.  In  De- 
cember and  January  I  received  many,  many  letters  from  my  constituents  regarding 
the  demise  of  the  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill.  Their  disappointment  and  frustration  came 
through  loud  and  clear.  And  every  day  I  continue  to  get  20-30  cards  and  letters 
from  people  expressing  similar  sentiments.  Here  is  a  sampling  of  what  some  of  the 
residents  of  the  15th  district  of  Florida  have  had  to  say — 

"Dear  Congressman:  We  did  have  a  big  disappointment  that  the  Simpson-Maz- 
zoli bill  wasn't  strengthened  and  passed  by  Congress.  I  wrote  to  Tip  O'  Neill,  Peter 
Rodino  and  Mr.  Wright  and  others  for  a  strict  reform  bill.  We  are  so  disappointed,  I 
am  calling  quits.  At  my  age  and  with  an  ulcer,  why  should  I  try  to  help?" 

"Dear  Congressman:  I  have  lived  in  Florida  since  1962.  Back  then  I  used  to  be 
teased  about  being  a  'walking  Chamber  of  Commerce'  for  Fort  Lauderdale.  Today  I 
want  to  leave  here  because  I  think  what  happened  to  Miami  is  creeping  up  here.  I 
find  myself  fearful,  angry,  and  frustrated  and  surely  that  is  no  way  to  live." 

"Dear  Congressman:  I  fear  that  our  problems  here  are  being  forgotten  by  the 
Congress." 

"Dear  Congressman:  It  is  frightening  that  Congress  can't  understand  the  danger 
of  the  situation  and  move  quickly  to  drastically  reform  our  present  laws." 

And  though  most  of  the  letters  expressed  disappointment,  all  urged  that  we  in 
Congress  do  not  give  up.  One  constituent  writes: 

"Please  never  give  up  the  fight  for  a  strict,  firm  immigration  bill  that  will  serve 
our  beautiful  country  and  allow  her  to  be  strong  and  healthy  and  decent." 

On  behalf  of  these  people,  I  wish  to  thank  you  for  making  immigration  reform 
your  number  one  priority.  It  has  been  my  pleasure  to  let  all  these  people  know  that 
the  bill  has  been  reintroduced,  is  moving  forward,  and  that  there  is  indeed  cause  for 
hope. 

I  pledge  my  personal  support  and  will  assist  in  any  way  I  can  to  insure  that  an 
immigration  reform  bill  becomes  law  this  Congress. 

As  has  often  been  said,  the  bill  is  not  perfect.  Personally  I  would  like  to  see  the 
amnesty  section  dropped  entirely  from  the  bill.  Also  I  believe  that  the  bill  would 
benefit  from  the  inclusion  of  an  Article  I  court  provision  which  would  go  a  long  way 
toward  providing  a  timely  and  fair  method  of  adjudicating  deportation,  exclusion 
and  political  asylum  cases. 

Also  the  bill  isn't  the  end-all.  It  won't  solve  all  our  immigration  problems  with 
one  swoop.  I  still  feel  very  strongly  about  the  need  for  emergency  power  legislation 
which  would  give  the  President  the  power  necessary  to  act  quickly  and  decisively  in 
an  immigration  crisis.  These  provisions  are  not  contained  in  the  bill. 

But  though  the  bill  won't  be  the  end-all,  it  is  an  urgently  needed  beginning.  And 
aside  from  the  concerns  that  I  have  with  the  bill,  I  still  feel  that  the  most  important 
thing  right  now  is  to  get  this  bill  moving  as  quickly  as  possible. 

Again,  on  behalf  of  myself  and  the  concerned  citizens  in  my  district,  I  want  to 
thank  you  for  remaining  committed  to  the  cause.  With  such  dedication,  I  feel  cer- 
tain we  will  see  a  successful  conclusion  this  year  and  that  will  be  victory,  not  only 
for  the  many  committed  Members  of  Congress  who  have  worked  so  hard,  but  for  the 
millions  of  Americans  who  have  put  their  faith  in  us  to  solve  the  problem. 


133 

Thank  you. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  thank  the  gentleman  for  that  statement. 

The  gentleman,  while  not  a  member  of  our  subcommittee,  has 
been  extremely  active  in  participating  with  us  in  some  of  our  hear- 
ings and  activities,  and  has  done  excellent  work  just  in  his  very 
first  term  in  Congress  last  year. 

We  now  welcome  a  new  Member  of  Congress.  It  is  our  first  op- 
portunity to  have  him  in  our  hearing  room.  We  welcome  you.  Con- 
gressman Towns,  and  hope  you  have  a  long  and  very  happy  and 
successful  tenure  in  Congress. 

Mr.  Towns.  I  am  delighted  to  be  here,  Mr.  Chairman.  As  a  new 
Member  of  Congress,  I  am  very  pleased  to  have  this  opportunity  to 
share  my  views  with  you  on  the  Immigration  Reform  Act,  H.R. 
1510,  and  to  hopefully  contribute  to  the  debate  on  this  issue  in  the 
98th  Congress. 

The  employer  sanctions  provision  of  this  bill  has  severe  implica- 
tions for  persons  of  color  in  this  society,  like  my  constitutents. 
Workers  who  look  or  sound  foreign  will  be  easy  targets  for  employ- 
ment discrimination.  Employers,  rather  than  chance  the  possibility 
of  hiring  an  undocumented  alien,  will  choose  to  hire  someone  who 
can  safely  be  considered  an  American.  Undeniably,  Hispanics  and 
Caribbean  blacks,  who  already  constitute  an  almost  permanent 
class  of  unemployed  and  underemployed  persons,  will  face  addition- 
al hiring  discrimination. 

Hispanics,  in  particular,  face  a  selective  assumption  by  the  gen- 
eral public  that  they  are  illegal  aliens.  A  classic  example:  The  raids 
on  job  sites  during  Operation  Jobs.  The  employees  targeted  during 
these  raids  were  dark-skinned  and  Hispanic-looking.  Even  Puerto 
Ricans,  who  comprise  the  majority  of  my  Hispanic  constituency, 
are  not  immune  from  such  bias. 

For  example,  in  1980  a  Puerto  Rican  citizen  was  denied  readmis- 
sion  to  the  United  States  after  returning  from  Puerto  Rico.  The 
basis  for  this  denial  rested  on  the  assumption  by  an  INS  official 
that  the  person  spoke  with  a  Guatemalan  accent.  Despite  the  fact 
that  Puerto  Ricans  have  been  U.S.  citizens  since  1917,  this  citizen 
was  forcibly  deported  to  Guatemala  where  he  was  jailed  for  some 
weeks  before  his  family  could  secure  his  return  to  the  United 
States.  This  man's  only  offense  was  that  he  looked  foreign.  Employ- 
er sanctions  will  only  serve  to  exacerbate  this  kind  of  national 
origin  discrimination. 

In  addition,  employer  sanctions  success  is  clearly  open  to  ques- 
tion. A  study  of  some  19  countries  found  that  employer  sanctions 
was  not  an  effective  deterrent  to  stemming  the  illegal  employment 
of  aliens.  Given  this  finding,  one  must  question  whether  such  a 
provision  is  worth  the  devastating  human  costs  that  minorities  will 
experience  as  a  result  of  employer  sanctions. 

As  a  member  of  the  caucus  task  force  on  Haitian  refugees,  let  me 
address  the  adjudication  procedures  and  asylum  section  of  this  bill. 
The  independent  structure,  while  a  vast  improvement  over  the 
Senate's  provisions  in  this  area,  still  poses  serious  problems  in  the 
area  of  due  process  protections. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  could  go  on  and  on,  but  in  my  area  we  are  ex- 
tremely concerned  because  we  feel  that  certain  portions  of  this  bill 


134 

will  be  discriminatory.  We  know  that  it  is  very  difficult  to  come  up 
with  a  bill  that  is  going  to  take  care  of  everything  and  that  is  going 
to  take  care  of  everybody.  We  recognize  the  amount  of  time  and 
the  hard  effort  that  your  committee  has  put  into  it.  But  I'm  hoping 
that  before  you  continue  to  move  forward  that  you  will  sit  down 
with  the  Hispanic  caucus,  sit  down  with  the  Black  Caucus,  and 
people  that  come  from  areas  that  have  a  very  serious  immigration 
problem,  and  make  certain  that  their  input  goes  into  this  bill. 

Thank  you  very  much  for  the  opportunity  to  testify. 

[The  complete  statement  follows:] 

Testimony  of  Hon.  Ed  Towns 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  aware  that  this  subcommittee  devoted  a  lot  of  time  and 
energy  to  the  issue  of  immigration  reform  in  the  97th  Congress.  As  a  new  member 
of  Congress,  I  am  very  pleased  to  share  my  views  with  you  this  morning  on  the  Im- 
migration Reform  Act,  H.R.  1510  and  to  hopefully  contribute  to  the  debate  on  this 
issue  in  the  98th  Congress. 

H.R.  1510  represents,  for  the  most  part,  a  fair  and  responsible  approach  to  immi- 
gration reform.  The  legalization  provisions,  in  particular,  are  an  important  step  for- 
ward in  bringing  undocumented  aliens  out  of  their  shadowy,  freightened  existence.  I 
am  troubled,  however,  by  the  potential  discriminatory  impact  of  an  employer  sanc- 
tions proposal.  Without  appropriate  mechanisms  for  monitoring,  discrimination  in 
hiring  will  evitably  occur  for  hispanics.  West  Indians  and  others  who  "appear"  for- 
eign. In  addition,  the  recent  treatment  of  Haitian  and  Salvadoran  asylum  applicants 
raises  serious  questions  about  whether  the  new  streamlined  adjudication  procedures 
will  offer  sufficient  protections  against  administrative  abuses. 

Mr.  Chairman,  40  percent  of  my  Congressional  District  is  Hispanic  and  many  Ca- 
ribbean blacks  also  live  in  the  area.  The  employer  sanctions  provision,  of  this  bill, 
has  severe  implications  for  persons  of  color  in  this  society,  like  my  constituents. 
Workers,  who  "look  or  sound  '  foreign,  will  be  easy  targets  for  employment  discrimi- 
nation. Employers,  rather  than  chance  the  possibility  of  hiring  an  undocumented 
alien,  will  choose  to  hire  an  Anglo,  someone  who  can  safely  be  considered  an 
"American".  Undeniably,  Hispanics  and  Caribbean  blacks,  who  already  constitute 
an  almost  permanent  class  of  unemployed  and  underemployed  persons,  will  face  ad- 
ditional hiring  discrimination. 

Hispanics,  in  particular,  face  a  "selective  assumption"  by  the  general  public  that 
they  are  illegal  aliens.  Witness  the  raids  on  job-sites  during  "operation  jobs".  The 
employees  targetted,  during  these  raids,  were  "dark-skinned  and  hispanic-looking". 
Even  Puerto  Ricans,  who  comprise  the  majority  of  my  Hispanic  constituency,  are 
not  immune  from  such  bias.  For  example,  in  1980  a  Puerto  Rican  citizen  was  denied 
readmission  to  the  United  States  after  a  return  trip  from  Puerto  Rico.  The  basis  for 
this  denial  rested  on  the  "assumption"  by  an  INS  official  that  the  person  spoke  with 
a  Guatemalan  accent.  Despite  the  fact  that  Puerto  Ricans  have  been  U.S.  citizens 
since  1917,  this  citizen  was  forcibly  deported  to  Guatemala  where  he  was  jailed  for 
some  weeks  before  his  family  could  secure  his  return  to  the  United  States.  This 
man's  only  offense  was  that  he  "looked  foreigri".  Employer  sanctions  will  only  serve 
to  exacerbate  this  kind  of  national  origin  discrimination. 

In  addition,  employer  sanctions'  success  is  clearly  open  to  question.  As  this  com- 
mittee knows,  GAO's  study  of  some  19  countries  found  that  employer  sanctions  was 
"not  an  effective  deterrent  to  stemming  the  illegal  employment  of  aliens".  Given 
this  finding,  one  must  question  whether  such  a  provision  is  worth  the  devastating 
human  costs  that  minorities  will  experience  as  a  result  of  employer  sanctions. 

I  am  aware  that  Representative  Gus  Hawkins  (D-CA)  authored  several  amend- 
ments last  year,  in  the  Education  and  Labor  Committee,  to  guard  against  this  kind 
of  discrimination  which  I  have  just  discussed.  While  these  amendments  have  been 
previously  opposed  as  being  too  burdensome,  I  would  hope  that  this  committee 
would  work  closely  with  Rep.  Hawkins  to  ensure  that  the  problem  of  employment 
discrimination,  caused  by  the  employer  sanctions  provision,  is  adequately  addressed 
in  this  bill.  To  assist  in  this  process,  I  have  asked  the  General  Accounting  Office  to 
prepare  a  report  on  the  existing  civil  rights  remedies  available  to  persons  who 
would  suffer  discrimination  resulting  from  the  sanctions  law.  I  hope  that  the  infor- 
mation generated  by  this  report  will  prove  useful  to  this  committee. 

As  a  member  of  the  Caucus  Task  Force  on  Haitian  Refugees,  let  me  address  the 
"adjudication  procedures  and  asylum"  section  of  this  bill.  The  independent  struc- 


135 

ture,  while  a  vast  improvement  over  the  Senate's  provisions  in  this  area,  still  poses 
serious  problems  in  the  area  of  due  process  protections. 

Summary  exclusion  proceedings  are  clearly  open  to  abuse  of  discretion  by  INS  of- 
ficials. No  assurances  are  provided  that  an  alien,  specifically  a  Haitian  or  Salva- 
doran,  will  ever  be  informed  of  their  right  to  claim  asylum.  A  notice  requirement  is 
not  authorized  in  this  legislation.  Those,  who  oppose  notice  to  an  alien  of  their  right 
to  claim  asylum,  presume  that  legitimate  asylum-seekers  will  openly  state  their 
desire  to  claim  asylum.  The  realities  of  repression  simply  do  not  support  this  pre- 
sumption. UNHCR  protection  officers  have  repeatedly  stressed  that  persons,  with 
legitimate  asylum  claims,  often  have  equally  valid  reasons  for  not  voicing  an 
asylum  declaration  immediately.  They  often  fear  reprisals  against  families  they  left 
behind;  also,  distrust  of  government  officials  is  a  way  of  life  in  most  repressive  coun- 
tries. Consequently,  this  combination  of  factors  may  lead  asylum-seekers  to  be  hesi- 
tant about  immediately  admitting  persecution  to  the  first  American  immigration  of- 
ficial they  see.  In  effect,  a  notice  requirement  is  the  only  way  to  ensure  that  those 
fleeing  persecution,  from  our  Western  Hemispheric  allies,  will  have  an  adequate  op- 
portunity to  assert  their  asylum  claim.  The  importance  of  notice  has  also  been  sup- 
ported by  our  Federal  courts.  In  two  Federal  District  Court  decisions  involving  Sal- 
vadorans,  Orantes-Hernandez  v.  Smith  and  Nunez  v.  Boldin,  INS  was  required  to 
give  aliens  advice  of  the  right  to  apply  for  political  asylum  in  order  to  effectuate  the 
right. 

The  elimination  of  judicial  review  of  asylum  claims  raises  the  spectre  of  court- 
stripping.  As  you  know,  the  members  of  the  Congressional  Black  Caucus  are  op- 
posed to  the  removal  of  Federal  court  jurisdiction  as  a  matter  of  principle.  Even 
limitations  on  judicial  review,  under  the  administrative  law  judge  system,  is  prob- 
lematic given  the  history  of  treatment  for  certain  asylum  applicants.  An  appeals 
board,  consisting  of  Presidential  appointees,  is  no  guarantee  of  a  neutral  arbiter  for 
the  asylum  claims  of  Salvadorans  or  Haitians. 

Finally,  let  me  encourage  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  fully  examine  the  administrative 
remedy  of  "extended  voluntary  departure".  In  reviewing  the  hearing  record,  this 
issue  is  the  one  major  asylum  policy  area  which  was  not  explored  during  the  com- 
mittee's extensive  hearings  last  year.  As  you  are  aware,  the  plight  of  Salvadorans 
and  Ethiopians,  in  this  country,  has  centered  around  the  use  of  "extended  voluntary 
departure".  The  turmoil  in  Central  America,  regretably,  seems  to  be  increasing. 
This  situation  suggests  that  Guatemalans  may  soon  join  the  stream  of  Salvadoran 
refugees  into  the  United  States  in  increasing  numbers.  Extended  voluntary  depar- 
ture should  be  explored  as  a  humane  way  of  dealing  with  the  "country  of  first 
asylum"  issue. 

Again,  thank  you  for  this  opportunity  to  express  my  views  and  I  hope  to  work 
with  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  other  committee  members  toward  an  immigration 
reform  package  which  is  not  discriminatory  and  which  we  all  can  support. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you  very  much,  Congressman,  and  we  cer- 
tainly shall  do  that. 

The  chair  will  yield  itself  5  minutes  and  start  the  round  of  ques- 
tions. 

When  we  announced  just  the  other  day  this  series  of  hearings — 7 
full  days  of  hearings  over  the  next  3  weeks — people  thought  I  must 
have  had  some  sort  of  temporary  sunstroke  or  temporary  amnesia 
or  something,  because  they  said,  "Look,  you  had  a  tremendous 
record  built  in  the  last  Congress.  You  talked  to  everybody  repeated- 
ly." 

But  in  my  judgment.  Congressman  Towns,  the  whole  reason  we 

are  here  as  a  panel  is  to  try  to  make  the  product  as  perfect  as  we 
can  make  it,  which  means  that  advice  from  the  Black  Caucus,  the 
Hispanic  caucus,  and  other  groups  is  a  very  important  part  of  what 
we  are  doing. 

While,  as  the  gentleman  to  your  left  said,  we  have  to  legislate  on 
what  we  believe  to  be  in  the  interests  of  the  country  at  large  and 
not  so-called  special  interests,  each  one  of  us  is  a  member  of  sever- 
al special  interests.  In  that  sense,  we  have  to  hear  from  all  people 
and  all  organized  groups  about  this  bill. 


136 

Let  me  ask  the  gentleman,  because  his  testimony  dealt  in  part 
with  asylum  petitions,  assuming  that  we  don't  get  a  bill,  is  the  situ- 
ation the  gentleman  and  his  constituents  face  today  better  than 
the  bill  would  offer  by  way  of  our  substitute  to  the  system  of  adju- 
dicating asylum? 

Mr.  Towns.  Would  you  ask  the  question  again? 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I'm  sorry.  Would  the  gentleman's  constituents  be 
better  off  today  with  the  existing  law  dealing  with  asylum  or  with 
this  law  that  we  put  forth  in  H.R.  1510? 

Mr.  Towns.  It  would  make  them  a  little  better  than  this  law.  But 
I  think  the  point  is  when  we  talk  about  a  little  better,  we  need  to 
try  to  make  things  as  perfect  as  we  possibly  can.  I  think  that  is 
what  we  are  really  talking  about. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  think  the  gentleman  would  probably  agree,  then, 
that  the  House  version,  while  not  as  perfect  as  we  hope  to  make  it, 
is  still  quite  a  bit  better  than  the  Senate  version. 

Mr.  Towns.  I  would  agree  with  that  as  well. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you  very  much. 

The  gentleman  from  Florida,  Mr.  Shaw,  I  would  again  like  to 
commend  you  on  the  active  role  that  you  have  played  in  the  sub- 
committee work  and  the  full  committee  markup.  Of  course,  that 
was  a  critical  element. 

Is  the  gentleman  able  to  find  in  here  seeds  of  a  bill  that  would  be 
worthy  of  strong  support  by  all  Members  of  the  Congress?  Are 
there  elements  in  here  that  the  gentleman  feels  should  be  excised 
or  elements  added?  Or  is  the  gentlemen  of  the  belief,  as  the  Chair 
is,  that  you  can  never  solve  all  the  problems  but  you  try  to  solve  as 
many  as  you  can? 

Mr.  Shaw.  I  think  in  solving  as  many  problems  as  you  can  you 
are  going  to  come  up  with  some  parts  that  I'm  certainly  not  going 
to  like,  and  I  think  the  majority  of  people  that  I  represent  are  not 
going  to  like.  The  amnesty  provisions  still  trouble  me,  and  I  intend 
to  oppose  that  provision  when  it  gets  to  the  full  committee.  Howev- 
er, I  understand  the  real  practicalities  of  getting  the  bill  to  the 
floor  and  the  passage  of  a  bill. 

I  think  one  of  the  things  we  are  going  to  have  to  be  extremely 
cautious  of  is  that  we  do  not  put  an  unfair  burden  upon  the  States 
who  are  going  to  be  affected  by  a  possible  amnesty  provision. 

We  had  a  long  debate  on  that  in  the  last  session,  and  I  think  we 
came  up  at  least  with  a  middle  ground  that  would  at  least  ease  the 
financial  burden  on  States  such  as  my  own  home  State  of  Florida. 

As  I  say,  I  again  plan  to  oppose  the  amnesty  provision,  both  here 
and  on  the  floor  of  the  House,  should  we  have  a  rule  that  would 
allow  us  to  do  so.  However,  in  doing  so,  I  am  still  mindful  of  the 
fact  that  the  bill,  if  passed,  and  even  though  it  is  not  perfect,  and 
even  though  there  are  provisions  that  I  have  very  strong  feelings 
about,  would  certainly  have  us  so  much  better  off  than  we  are  now. 
And  if  this  bill  were  to  have  passed  the  full  House  in  the  last  ses- 
sion in  the  form  it  came  out  of  the  committee,  we'd  be  a  lot  better 
off. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  thank  the  gentleman. 

I  yield  5  minutes  to  the  gentleman  from  California,  our  ranking 
member. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 


137 

Congressman  Towns,  you  mentioned  a  point  that  troubled  many 
of  us  when  we  started  work  on  this  bill  some  time  ago,  that  is,  that 
we  not  do  anything  that  would  allow  more  discrimination  than 
now  exists  and  hopefully  would  eliminate  some  of  the  discrimina- 
tion with  respect  to  the  Hispanic  population.  And  you  say  in  your 
testimony: 

"Rather  than  chance  the  possibility  of  hiring  an  undocumented 
alien,  employers  will  choose  to  hire  an  Anglo." 

The  bill  that  we  have  before  us,  much  like  the  bill  that  we  had 
all  of  the  last  year,  requires  an  employer  to  verify  the  employment 
eligibility  of  any  prospective  employee  regardless  of  appearance.  In 
fact,  when  we  did  that,  as  an  effort  so  that  there  would  not  be  dis- 
crimination, we  ran  the  risk  of  being  criticized  on  the  other  hand 
that  it  is  overly  burdensome  because  it  requires  the  employer  to  do 
it  for  all  prospective  employees.  And  you  run  into  the  question  of 
people  saying,  "Well,  what  you  are  doing  is  setting  up  a  system  of 
identification  for  all  Americans  or  all  people  in  America.'  But  we 
felt  the  verification  on  requirement  was  the  only  way  you  could 
eliminate  the  possibility  of  discrimination  if  you  were  going  to  have 
an  effective  control  at  the  employment  nexus. 

Any  employer  who  would  fail  to  do  that,  that  is,  require  those 
eligibility  documents  from  any  prospective  employee,  would  be  in 
violation  of  the  law. 

Then  we  have  some  paperwork  requirements  that  in  essence  pro- 
tect the  employer.  If  the  employer  makes  the  request  for  the  docu- 
ments, looks  at  them— and  on  their  face  they  look  good— signs  a 
document  that  says  he  has  reviewed  them,  and  has  the  prospective 
employee  sign  a  document  saying  that  he  can  legally  work  in  the 
United  States,  that  acts  as  a  defense  for  the  employer  against  the 
prosecution  that  he  violated  the  law. 

With  that  being  the  construct  of  the  bill,  can  you  give  us  some 
guidance  as  to  what  else  you  think  we  ought  to  do  at  that  point  in 
time  to  stop  the  possibility  of  discrimination  flowing  from  this  act? 

Mr.  Towns.  First  of  all,  let  me  say  I  have  a  lot  of  questions  about 
that  because  some  businesses  are  not  going  to  be  able  to  do  all 
these  kinds  of  things.  I'm  talking  about  the  small  businesses  in 
particular.  So  what  they  would  do  is  take  a  chance,  by  making  cer- 
tain the  person  looks  OK  and  sounds  OK.  But  the  point  I  am 
making  is  if  the  person  happens  to  be  black  or  happens  to  be  His- 
panic, they  would  do  a  double-double  check,  and  when  there  is  a 
question  they  would  just  eliminate  hiring  the  person.  And  that's 
the  point  we  are  trying  to  make. 

I  am  sajdng  that  they  recognize  that  this  will  not  be  able  to  be 
enforced  across  the  board  in  every  instance,  and  when  there  is 
doubt  they  would  not  hire  the  Hispanic  person. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  Let  me  ask  you  this:  If  you  hypothetically  accept 
as  a  given,  that  if  we  are  ever  going  to  control  the  immigration 
problem  in  this  country,  we  are  going  to  have  to  do  something  with 
respect  to  employer  sanctions,  how  else  would  you  suggest  we 
police  that  other  than  by  this  mechanism  that  we  have  in  the  bill? 

Mr.  Towns.  Other  than  that? 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  Yes. 

Mr.  Towns.  First  of  all,  I  don't  think  that  provision  in  terms  of 
the  way  it  is  in  the  bill  is  the  way  to  go.  That  is  what  I  am  really 


18-556    0-83 10 


138 

saying  to  you.  We  are  talking  about  small  businesses.  Many  busi- 
nesses will  not  go  through  that  whole  process. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  We  have  an  exemption  for  the  paperwork  require- 
ments for  those  who  have  three  or  less. 

Mr.  Towns.  We  understand  that.  We're  talking  about  even  above 
three.  Rather  than  to  take  a  chance  or  to  go  through  all  the  paper- 
work and  do  the  kind  of  research  and  get  involved  in  the  legality, 
they  would  just  not  hire  the  person  when  in  doubt.  That's  what  I'm 
saying.  In  other  words,  I  disagree  with  the  fact 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  I  understand  that.  I  guess  what  I'm  asking  is: 
What  is  the  alternative?  Do  you  have  an  alternative  for  us?  I  don't 
want  to  put  you  on  the  spot,  and  I'd  love  to  have  your  comments 
later,  but  we  are  searching  for  an  alternative  if,  in  fact,  you  don't 
think  that's  a  proper  way  of  doing  it.  Is  there  another  way  of  doing 
it  that  comes  to  mind  that  you  could  help  us  with?  Because  we  are 
searching  for  what  the  best  way  would  be. 

Mr.  Towns.  Well,  I  will  look  into  that  a  little  further,  but  I  have 
some  concerns  about  this  particular  program. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  May  I  ask  one  question  of  Clay  Shaw. 

Clay,  you  referred  to  the  amnesty  provision.  I  hope  you'll  allow 
me  to  refer  to  it  as  the  legalization  provision.  I  happen  to  think 
there's  a  world  of  difference  in  the  two.  You  believe  that  it  ought 
to  be  dropped.  My  question  is:  What  do  we  then  do  with  the  large 
number  of  undocumented  aliens  who  have  been  in  this  country  for 
an  appreciable  period  of  time? 

The  reason  I  ask  that  is  that  in  California  we  had  a  Field  Foun- 
dation poll  last  year  and  the  question  was  asked:  "Ought  those 
people  who  are  here  illegally  be  deported?"  An  overwhelming  ma- 
jority of  Californians  of  all  groups,  Anglo,  Hispanic,  and  black,  said 
yes.  It  was  followed  up  by  a  second  question  which  said,  "Would 
you  support  legalizing  those  who  have  been  here  illegally  for  5  con- 
tinuous years?"  And  again  in  every  category  it  was  an  overwhelm- 
ing yes,  not  quite  as  high  as  the  first  response  but  almost  as  high. 

And  in  light  of  that,  what  do  you  suggest  we  do  with  those 
people  who  are  here  and  have  been  here  for  5  years  or  more? 

Mr.  Shaw.  I'd  like  to  break  the  question  up  into  two  basic  areas. 
I  think,  first  of  all,  if  you  continue  to  do  what  we  are  doing  now, 
the  answer  would  be  nothing,  because  the  Federal  Government 
really  is  doing  nothing  meaningful  to  deport  the  people  who  are 
here  illegally.  We  have  heard  comments  made  by  members  of  the 
committee  as  well  as  people  testifying  that  if  we  were  to  eliminate 
this  particular  provision  then  we  will  start  sweeping  through 
neighborhoods  and  shoving  people  out  of  the  country.  We  know 
that  is  not  going  to  happen.  We  don't  have  the  resources  or  the 
manpower  to  do  it.  We  haven't  done  it  and  we  are  not  going  to  do 
that. 

But  I  do  think  the  question  of  what  to  do  with  the  people  here 
that  have  been  here  illegally  for  some  time  and  who  have  really 
started  to  make  a  meaningful  contribution  to  society  is  something 
that  we  are  going  to  have  to  address  and  look  at, 

I  just  think  this  is  the  wrong  form  in  which  to  approach  it  at  this 
particular  time,  and  this  is  the  wrong  bill.  What  I  am  hopeful  that 
this  bill  will  do  is  send  out  messages  around  the  world,  across  this 


139 

hemisphere,  that  the  United  States  is  serious  about  enforcing  its 
immigration  policy  and  that  we  are  going  about  it. 

I  think  also  the  employer  sanctions  is  a  very  important  portion 
that  is  going  to  cause  a  lot  of  the  people  who  are  here  illegally  to 
simply  go  home  because  they  cannot  be  legally  hired  and  the  eco- 
nomic magnet  that  brought  them  here  is  simply  going  away. 

And  if  you  look  at  it  from  an  individual  humanitarian  position,  it 
is  very  difficult.  You  have  made  the  parallel  with  knowing  some- 
body down  the  street  or  somebody's  maid  or  somebody's  friend  or  a 
faithful  employer  of  somebody  as  to,  "Are  you  going  to  go  and 
deport  that  person?" 

Well,  this  bill  really  doesn't  do  that.  This  bill  doesn't  change  that 
particular  law.  I  just  think  this  bill  is  the  wrong  bill  in  which  to 
deal  with  this  subject  and  the  far-reaching  ramifications  that  it's 
going  to  have. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  gentleman's  time  has  expired.  And  if  I  might 
insert  about  10  seconds,  I  do  hope  the  gentleman  as  a  leader  of  the 
delegation  would  examine  the  question.  I  think  there  is  a  very 
great  degree  of  difference  between  the  amnesty  that  the  gentleman 
talks  about  and  the  legalization  program  which  is  in  this  bill  and 
which  the  gentleman  from  Texas  talked  about.  Our  bill  means  you 
have  examinations  of  all  applicants,  you  have  scrutiny,  you  have  a 
test  of  the  person's  background,  of  his  work  habits,  of  what  he  may 
or  may  not  have  done  with  respect  to  criminal  law  while  he's  been 
in  the  country.  It  is  certainly  no  blanket  "let  everybody  come  in" 
kind  of  legalization  program. 

So  I  would  just  ask  the  gentlemen  to  examine  it. 
The  gentleman  from  Florida  is  recognized  for  5  minutes. 
Mr.  Smith.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Shaw,  in  light  of  the  comments  the  chairman  just  made,  ba- 
sically it's  not  a  blanket  amnesty;  it's  a  legalization  program.  But 
also  in  light  of  the  fact  that  you  cited  some  statistics  where  it 
showed  that  10  percent  or  even  less  on  many  occasions,  in  areas 
where  the  legalization  program  was  offered,  frankly  took  advan- 
tage of  it,  doesn't  that  to  some  degree  unfortunately  vitiate  the 
whole  concept  of  amnesty  in  any  event  and  leave  us  with  a  situa- 
tion where  most  people,  because  of  the  process  you  have  to  go 
through,  will  wind  up  staying  underground?  They  haven't  been  de- 
tected for  5  years  and  probably  will  have  a  very  good  chance  of  re- 
maining undetected  if  they  don't  come  forward  because  they  might 
not  qualify  in  the  program. 

Mr.  Shaw.  I  think  the  gentleman  is  quite  right.  When  you  make 
that  particular  parallel  or  state  that  problem,  I  am  reminded  of  a 
conversation  I  had  with  Representative  Rangel  when  he  was  talk- 
ing about  the  problems  he  was  having  with  the  census-takers.  He 
had  a  very  difficult  time  trying  to  convince  many  of  the  people 
living  in  his  district  that  the  census-takers  were  not  the  immigra- 
tion officers. 

And  I  think  you  are  absolutely  correct.  You  are  going  to  find 
that  problem.  And  I  don't  think  that  the  legalization  portion  of  the 
bill,  or  amnesty,  if  you  will,  is  going  to  solve  that  problem  for  the 
vast  majority  of  those  who  are  here  illegally.  I  think  you're  quite 
right. 


140 

Mr.  Smith.  Congressman  Towns,  you  expressed  some  reserva- 
tions in  your  comments  about  the  program  relating  to  provisions 
for  adjudicating  procedures  and  ultimately  the  asylum  situation. 

Would  you  indicate  how  you  feel  about  due  process?  Do  you  be- 
lieve in  administrative  due  process  for  an  illegal  alien  who  arrives 
on  these  shores  who  is  caught  immediately  and  detected  immedi- 
ately? Do  you  believe  in  administrative  due  process  or  constitution- 
al due  process  or  any  kind  of  due  process? 

Mr.  Towns.  If  it  is  set  up  in  a  way  that  it  will  be  fair,  that's  one 
thing,  but  the  point  is  that  in  terms  of  the  procedure  that  has  been 
implemented  there  is  some  question  about  whether  or  not  there  is 
fairness.  And  that  has  been  the  real  problem  up  to  this  particular 
point.  Regardless  of  the  type  of  structure,  there  is  some  question  as 
to  whether  or  not  it's  been  a  fair  procedure. 

Mr.  Smith.  Of  course,  "due  process"  in  essence  means  fairness. 

Mr.  Towns.  Yes. 

Mr.  Smith.  Assuming  that  there  is  due  process,  would  you  limit 
it  to  administrative  due  process?  Would  you  think  in  terms  of  full 
due  process,  which  means  constitutional  due  process,  or  would  you 
have  some  other  way  of  handling  it? 

In  essence,  working  backward,  should  someone  who  arrives  on 
these  shores  illegally,  comes  here  on  a  boat,  an  economic  refugee, 
for  instance,  who  may  have  an  absolute  right  to  avoid  the  poverty 
in  that  country,  doesn't  seek  asylum  in  the  political  sense,  comes 
here  looking  for  a  job,  gets  caught  on  the  beach,  is  put  into  a  hold- 
ing detention — from  that  point  of  view,  what  should  be  their  ulti- 
mate ability?  Should  they  be  able  to  go  to  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  to  plead  their  case  after  they  have  been  through 
every  other  process,  and  during  that  provision  have  attorneys  pro- 
vided by  the  United  States,  be  paid  by  the  United  States  on  welfare 
or  some  other  Government  program? 

I  am  curious  as  to  who  in  Congress  feels  that  once  somebody  gets 
here  illegally  they  are  entitled  to  utilize  every  advantage  a  citizen 
is  offered  and,  in  fact,  they  can  stay  in  this  country  2  or  3  or  4 
years  and  ultimately  get  due  process  in  front  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Towns.  It  depends  on  the  nature  of  how  a  person  arrives  and 
what's  going  on  in  that  country.  I  could  not  talk  about  a  blanket 
situation  but  in  terms  of  what  is  happening,  in  terms  of  turmoil  in 
that  country,  or  if  they  are  trying  to  escape  from  something,  I 
think  that  is  the  way  it  should  be  weighed. 

And  if  you're  talking  about  in  terms  of  administration,  looking 
at  it  from  that  viewpoint,  I  would  say  yes,  based  on  the  reason  that 
the  person  actually  comes  to  this  country. 

Mr.  Smith.  Thank  you. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  thank  the  gentleman  from  Florida. 

The  gentleman  from  New  York  is  recognized  for  5  minutes. 

Mr.  Fish.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  welcome  our  colleagues. 

Mr.  Shaw,  what  do  you  anticipate  would  happen  in  years  ahead 
if  this  Congress  fails  again  to  enact  major  reform  of  the  legislation? 

Mr.  Shaw.  I  think  we  have  seen  the  tip  of  the  iceberg.  We  have 
seen  it  in  the  Southwest;  we  have  certainly  seen  it  in  my  own 
home  State  of  Florida.  I  think  we  have  right  now  lost  control  of  our 


141 

borders,  and  I  think  the  rest  of  the  world  is  just  beginning  to  really 
understand  that.  And  the  point  of  destination  of  half  the  people 
who  live  in  the  world  today  is  going  to  be  the  United  States.  And 
unless  we  do  something  now  we  are  going  to  totally  lose  control  of 
the  quality  of  life  that  we  have  worked  so  hard  for  in  this  country 
over  the  years. 

Mr.  Fish.  Would  you  also  anticipate  that  as  more  and  more 
people  enter  surreptitiously  that  incidents  of  violence  against  mi- 
norities and  particularly  against  Asians  and  Hispanics  will  in- 
crease in  the  United  States? 

Mr.  Shaw.  I  think  that  is  absolutely  true.  You  can  look  at  a  com- 
munity— and  I  have  looked  at  the  problem,  and  going  back  and 
talking  about  Dade  County— Dade  County  has  some  wonderful 
people  who  have  worked  very  hard  over  the  years  to  establish 
beautiful  race  relationships.  The  community  has  gone  through  the 
problems  of  the  sixties  and  the  fifties  of  integration  without  any 
real  disturbances.  And  you  look  at  that  community  and  you  say, 
"Why  now  have  they  had  the  violence?  Why  do  we  have  those 
problems  in  the  city?"  and  what  not  and  I  think  a  lot  of  it  was 
born  out  of  the  frustration  of  the  illegal  immigration  that  is  going 
on  in  this  country.  It  is  very  disturbing  to  any  community,  whether 
you're  talking  about  it  at  that  particular  level  or  whether  you  are 
just  looking  at  the  high  instances  of  crime. 

Mr.  Fish.  Wouldn't  you  say  it's  fair,  looking  ahead,  that  what  we 
experienced  in  1980  could  easily  occur  again?  And  that  is  the 
American  people  would  confuse  the  presence  of  entrants  from 
Haiti,  from  Mariel,  from  Cuba,  and  surreptitious  entrants  on  our 
borders,  with  those  we  want  here,  legal  immigrants  and  refugees, 
and  this  again  would  cause  a  reaction  against  the  admission  of 
those  people  who  we  do  wish  to  let  in  this  country? 

Mr.  Shaw.  There  is  no  question  that  those  who  come  here  illegal- 
ly are  butting  in  front  of  the  line.  We  have  an  orderly  process  by 
which  immigration  can  be  obtained  legally  into  this  country.  And 
those  who  are  violating  the  law  and  come  to  the  front  of  the  line 
are  totally  disregarding  the  laws  that  this  Congress  has  set  up  and 
we  expect  the  administration  to  enforce. 

Mr.  Fish.  Thank  you. 

I  think  the  views  you  have  just  expressed,  Mr.  Towns,  are  very 
important.  I  think  we  have  a  refugee  act  that  is  based  on  humani- 
tarian considerations  and  U.S.  foreign  policy  considerations,  and  it 
is  undeniable  that  we  need  to  have  immigration.  It  is  again  one  of 
the  great  traditions  of  this  country.  We  are  all  descendents  of  im- 
migrants. I  would  really  hate  to  see  this  policy  of  ours  in  jeopardy 
because  of  the  public  reaction  over  uncontrolled  immigration 
policy. 

I  would  just  like  point  out  that  I  served  on  the  Select  Commis- 
sion chaired  by  Father  Hesburgh.  In  the  course  of  12  hearings 
across  the  country  and  24  consultations  with  experts  in  Washing- 
ton and  2  years  of  study,  when  it  came  to  voting  on  the  question  of 
employer  sanctions  the  Commission  voted  14  to  2  in  favor  of  them. 
And  that  Commission  had  such  people  on  it  as  Father  Hesburgh, 
then-Secretary  of  Labor  Ray  Marshall,  then-HHS  Secretary  Pat 
Harris,  Attorney  General  Civiletti,  Secretary  of  State  Muskie,  Sen- 
ator Kennedy,  the  chairman  of  this  committee,  Pete  Rodino,  a 


142 

former  subcommittee  chairman,  Elizabeth  Holtzman,  as  well  as 
four  Republicans  in  the  House  and  Senate. 

So  my  point  is  we  spent  2  years  on  that  Commission  and  we  were 
unable  to  come  up  with  a  better  or  more  human  enforcement  than 
employer  sanctions. 

I  hear  my  time  is  up. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  We  thank  you  very  much  for  your  statement. 

Mr.  Fish.  When  did  you  get  the  bell? 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  That's  a  new  device  we  put  in  to  speed  things 
along. 

We  have  been  joined  by  Congressman  Brown  from  Colorado. 

Hank,  as  you  are  aware,  the  Attorney  General  has  been  waiting. 
The  other  two  gentlemen  are  excused.  If  you  gentlemen  want  to 
stay,  you're  welcome. 

Hank,  if  you  want  to  deliver  your  statement,  you  may.  Without 
objection,  your  entire  statement  will  be  made  a  part  of  the  record. 

Mr.  Brown.  Mr.  Chairman,  thank  you.  If  I  may,  I'd  like  to  add 
some  personal  remarks  to  that  statement  that  you  have  been  kind 
enough  to  put  in  the  record. 

My  hope  is  to  draw  the  committee's  attention  to  the  provision  of 
the  bill  that  involves  employer  sanctions,  and  specifically  that  area 
of  the  bill  that  involves  the  exemption  of  Government  entities  from 
those  sanctions.  And  I  am  sure  it  was  drafted  with  that  exemption 
for  very  good  reason.  But  I  would  just  like  to  share  a  perspective 
on  this  issue,  born  of  an  experience  in  my  prior  job. 

I  worked  for  a  company  that  was  involved  in  cattle  feeding,  lamb 
feeding,  slaughter  and  processing  of  the  byproducts,  and  nation- 
wide sales  of  those  products. 

During  a  period  of  that  employment  I  handled  a  variety  of  areas, 
one  of  which  was  our  hide  processing.  It's  a  common  process  in- 
volved in  every  packing  plant.  It  was  one  that  the  company  I 
worked  for  did  not  itself  perform.  We  contracted  for  a  company  to 
provide  that  service.  But,  out  of  our  concern  that  they  be  responsi- 
ble employers,  we  tried  to  follow  up  and  make  sure  that  the  people 
who  did  that  processing  of  our  hides  acted  in  compliance  with  the 
law.  We  found  on  occasion  that  they  employed  a  great  many  illegal 
aliens  to  process  those  hides. 

In  following  up  on  that  and  making  sure  they  did  follow  the 
laws,  we  asked  what  kinds  of  provisions  they  were  following  to 
make  sure  the  people  that  they  employed  were  citizens. 

They  informed  us  they  checked  the  ID's  of  all  new  hires.  All  the 
people  had  driver's  licenses,  the  people  had  social  security  cards, 
the  people  were  referred  to  them  by  the  Colorado  State  Depart- 
ment of  Employment. 

Yet,  the  bill  exempts  governmental  entities  from  the  employer 
sanctions.  My  hope  is  the  committee  would  take  another  look  at 
this  exemption  from  two  perspectives: 

First  of  all,  effectiveness.  You  simply  cannot  tell  an  employer, 
who  does  not  employ  a  competent  attorney  all  of  the  time — and  I 
don't  think  you  want  this  country  at  a  point  where  every  employer 
has  to  have  an  attorney  at  his  side  every  time  he  makes  a  deci- 
sion— that,  when  someone  comes  to  them  with  a  Government- 
issued  driver's  license  and  a  Government-issued  social  security 
card,  and  is  in  fact  referred  to  them  by  an  unemployment  agency 


143 

run  by  the  State  government  and  funded  by  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment in  cooperation,  that  it's  wrong  to  hire  them.  To  exempt  those 
governmental  entities  from  the  sanctions  of  the  bill—specifically 
the  unemployment  service  that  refers  illegal  aliens  for  jobs— under- 
mines the  effectiveness  of  the  bill. 

Second,  I  would  hope  you  would  look  at  this  issue  also  from  the 
point  of  view  of  fairness.  To  impose  sanctions  of  real  significance 
on  employers  without  imposing  those  same  sanctions  on  people 
who  play  the  major  role  in  the  process  of  locating  jobs  for  illegal 
aliens  is  terribly  unfair. 

With  those  two  perspectives,  effectiveness  and  equity,  I  would 
hope  you'd  take  a  new  look  at  employer  sanctions.  My  personal 
preference  would  be  that  you  would  not  exempt  governmental  enti- 
ties from  those  sanctions. 

[The  complete  statement  follows:] 

Statement  of  Hon.  Hank  Brown 

I  would  like  to  thank  the  Subcommittee  for  this  opportunity  to  testify.  In  my 
judgment,  immigration  reform  in  this  country  is  long  overdue.  We  rightly  pride  our- 
selves on  being  what  John  F.  Kennedy  called  "a  nation  of  immigrants."  Since  the 
time  of  the  Pilgrims,  America  has  offered  freedom  to  those  fleeing  political  and  reli- 
gious persecution  and  opportunity  to  those  fleeing  famine  and  poverty.  In  turn,  ref- 
ugees and  immigrants  have  brought  to  this  country  their  talent  and  their  enter- 
prise, their  energy  and  their  ideals.  It  behooves  us,  as  the  descendents  of  immi- 
grants, to  make  sure  that  America  continues  to  be  a  beacon  of  freedom  and  opportu- 
nity to  the  poor  and  oppressed  everywhere. 

At  the  same  time,  we  are  a  sovereign  nation  and,  as  a  sovereign  nation,  we  have 
the  right— and  we  have  a  duty  to  our  own  citizens'— to  control  our  own  borders.  We 
all  welcome  the  orderly  admission  of  legally  qualified  immigrants  to  this  country. 
But  we  should  not  welcome  the  untold  thousands  of  aliens  who  are  entering  this 
country  illegally  at  a  time  when  social  services  are  already  overburdened  and  there 
aren't  enough  jobs  for  our  own  citizens. 

The  legislation  introduced  by  Representative  Mazzoli  and  Senator  Simpson  is  an 
attempt  to  address  this  problem.  I  am  in  sympathy  with  much  of  that  bill.  But  I 
would  like  to  direct  your  attention  to  one  aspect  of  the  bill  that  ought  to  be 
changed.  The  bill  makes  it  illegal  for  employers  knowingly  to  hire  illegal  aliens  and 
requires  that  employers  keep  records  showing  that  certain  kinds  of  identification 
were  checked  at  the  time  of  hiring.  The  same  requirements  are  imposed  on  private 
referral  agencies,  defined  as  agencies  that  refer  "for  a  fee."  However,  government 
referral  agencies— such  as  state  employment  offices  and  federal  jobs  centers— are 
exempted  from  this  requirement.  It  is  not  clear  why  they  are  exempted.  Is  it  that  it 
is  more  appropriate  for  private  citizens  to  enforce  our  immigration  laws  than  for 
government  agencies  to  do  so?  Is  it  that  the  paperwork  burden  that  is  acceptable 
when  imposed  on  a  business  or  farm  is  too  burdensome  for  the  bureaucracy?  Is  it 
thought  that  two  check  points  would  be  less  effective  than  one?  More  likely,  it  is 
just  an  oversight. 

This  oversight  can  easily  be  corrected.  The  requirements  that  the  bill  would  apply 
to  private  employers  and  to  private  referral  agencies  can  simply  be  extended  to  gov- 
ernment referral  agencies.  The  change  would  make  the  bill  both  more  effective  and 
more  fair.  It  would  be  more  effective  because  it  would  discourage  government  assist- 
ance of  an  illegal  activity.  Fraudulent  documents  would  be  examined  twice  and,  on 
one  occasion  at  least,  by  people  professionally  trained  in  the  detection  of  such  docu- 
ments. It  would  also  be  more  appropriate.  If  the  magnitude  of  the  problem  requires 
that  employers  have  some  responsibility  here,  then  surely  it  requires  that  govern- 
ment entities  have  an  equal,  if  not  greater,  responsibility.  What  is  an  employer  to 
think  when  he  is  fined  by  one  government  agency  for  hiring  workers  referred  to 
him  by  another  government  agency?  Finally  this  becomes  a  question  of  fairness.  We 
live  in  a  society  drowning  in  paperwork.  Government  regulations,  forms,  and  proce- 
dures are  the  bane  of  every  businessman,  indeed,  of  every  citizen.  For  the  govern- 
ment to  impose  additional  paperwork  on  private  citizens  who  run  farms  and  busi- 
nesses and  to  exempt  itself  would  be  unconscionable. 

Immigration  is  a  complex  and  controversial  issue.  It  will  be  difficult  for  Congress 
to  shape  legislation  that  is  both  workable  and  broadly  acceptable.  The  proposal  I 


144 

have  made  today  would  make  at  least  one  section  of  that  legislation  both  more  effec- 
tive and  more  fair. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  thank  the  gentleman  from  Colorado  for  his  sug- 
gestion. 

I  will  yield  myself  5  minutes.  What  the  committee  sought  to  do, 
of  course,  was  to  eliminate,  to  the  extent  it  could,  unnecessary  pa- 
perwork. It  felt  where  the  referral  and  reference  was  done  not  for 
a  fee  that  it  became  an  activity  which  ought  to  be  encouraged  and 
ought  not  to  be  encumbered;  on  the  other  hand,  where  the  referral 
of  recruitment  was  done  for  a  fee,  then  that  should  come  under 
sanctions  and  would  require  the  employers  to  dispose  of  the  paper- 
work. 

So  it  was  not,  certainly,  intended  to  benefit  governments.  It  was 
just  the  thought  that  there  were  some  matters  which  might  take 
place  in  hiring  which  were  not  for  a  fee  that  were  being  done  by  a 
private  firm. 

We  will  certainly  examine  your  idea,  in  our  attempt  to  achieve 
fairness  and  balance. 

I  yield  to  the  gentleman  from  California. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  I'm  not  going  to  ask  any  questions  other  than  to 
thank  Mr.  Brown  for  bringing  this  to  our  attention.  The  gentleman 
stated  rather  correctly  that  our  talk  was  on  fee  versus  nonfee  basis, 
but  recognizing  the  difficulty  you  have  with  the  bill,  would  suggest 
that  the  private  sector  ought  to  be  doing  something  in  sanctions  in 
public  sector  exemption. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  gentleman  from  Florida. 

Mr.  Smith.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  don't  have  any  questions.  I  certainly 
share  your  concerns  if  someone  is  recommended  with  the  color  of 
legitimacy  because  they  come  from  a  State  or  Federal  agency,  di- 
rectly upon  a  recommendation  or  referral,  apparently  the  employer 
is  going  to  be  in  the  position  where  he  will  probably  treat  that  as 
something  that  is  an  accomplished  fact  of  legitimacy  and  it  will  be 
a  problem. 

Of  course,  by  the  same  token,  the  bill  does  provide  for  knowingly 
hiring  an  undocumented  alien.  And  I  think  in  many  instances  you 
have  to  be  aware  of  the  fact  that  in  that  situation,  if  there  was 
ever  an  action,  it  would  certainly  appear  to  me  that  any  competent 
attorney  would  be  able  to  say — although  we  don't  want  to  get  that 
far  down  the  road,  it  seems  to  me  you'd  have  a  pretty  good  argu- 
ment on  the  basis  that  they  were  sent  to  you  by  a  State  or  Federal 
agency  and  came  with  appropriate  documentation. 

But  I  share  your  concerns  as  well. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  thank  the  gentleman. 

The  gentleman  from  New  York. 

Mr.  Fish.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

I  think  our  colleague,  Mr.  Brown,  made  a  strong  argument.  I 
recall  that  the  words  "for  a  fee"  were  added  to  the  original  bill 
which  included  the  words  "recruiting  and  referral,"  for  two  rea- 
sons. One  was  to  put  the  onus  on  the  entity  that  could  best  make 
the  judgment,  instead  of  the  individual;  second,  that  "for  a  fee" 
protected  the  entities  that  do  recruit  and  refer,  such  as  corpora- 
tions on  university  campuses  who  might  recruit  500  people  and 
accept  10.  And  we  don't  want  them  to  be  burdened  in  their  recruit- 
ing. 


145 

But  you  point  out  a  gap  here  that  we  have  to  deal  with  and  see  if 
we  can't  come  up  with  a  solution. 

I  appreciate  your  comments. 

Mr.  Brown.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  can  certainly  appreciate  and  sym- 
pathize with  the  committee's  concern  about  minimizing  paperwork. 
Perhaps  the  intent  of  my  testimony  is  to  suggest  two  things: 

First  of  all,  that  the  Government  itself  is  a  major  source  of  place- 
ment of  illegal  aliens.  I'm  not  sure  that  testimony  on  this  matter 
has  come  before  the  committee  before,  but  in  terms  of  employers 
who  want  to  conscientiously  follow  the  law  for  low-paying  jobs, 
many  of  their  referrals  do  come  from  the  Government. 

Second,  perhaps  a  way  to  solve  this  problem  is  not  solely  through 
the  fee/nonfee  basis,  but  by  specifically  including  Government. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  We  will  have  to  refer  to  the  lawyers  to  see  if  it's 
constitutional  to  make  a  distinction  between  Government  as  an 
entity  and  non-fee-producing  referrals  and  references  in  the  other 
sector. 

In  any  event,  thank  you  very  much. 

We  now  welcome  our  next  and  final  witness  for  the  day.  We  will 
turn  to  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States,  Mr.  William 
French  Smith,  and  any  of  your  assistants  who  wish  to  come  for- 
ward are  welcome. 

Mr.  Attorney  General,  your  statement  which  has  been  filed  with 
us  will  be  made  a  part  of  the  record,  and  we  welcome  your  state- 
ment. 

TESTIMONY  OF  WILLIAM  FRENCH  SMITH,  ATTORNEY  GENERAL 

OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

Attorney  General  Smith.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman, 
and  members  of  the  subcommittee. 

Some  years  ago  a  delegation  of  American  Indians  visited  Wash- 
ington to  dramatize  the  plight  of  their  people.  The  leader  of  the 
delegation.  Chief  Ben  American  Horse  of  the  Sioux,  stopped  here  at 
the  Capitol  to  visit  Alben  Barkley,  who  was  then  Vice  President  of 
the  United  States.  After  a  long  discussion,  the  chief  rose  to  leave. 
He  then  paused  for  a  moment,  looked  the  Vice  President  in  the 
eye,  and  said,  "Young  fellow,  let  me  give  you  a  little  advice.  Be 
careful  of  your  immigration  laws.  We  were  careless  with  ours." 

The  United  States  has,  indeed,  in  recent  years  been  careless 
about  its  immigration  laws.  In  spite  of  the  best  efforts  by  the  Immi- 
gration and  Naturalization  Service,  those  laws  themselves  have 
proved  inadequate  to  meet  the  pressure  of  ever-increasing  illegal 
immigration  that  even  now  threatens  to  engulf  us.  Simply  put,  we 
have  lost  control  of  our  borders.  As  a  result,  we  need  new  immigra- 
tion laws,  and  we  need  them  now. 

Discussing  the  need  for  immigration  reform  with  this  committee 
is,  however,  a  little  like  describing  another  kind  of  flood  to  Noah. 
During  the  97th  Congress  this  subcommittee  made  a  tremendous 
stride  toward  that  goal.  The  administration  appreciates  your  com- 
mitment to  this  difficult  task  and  the  prompt  introduction  in  the 
98th  Congress  of  H.R.  1510,  the  Immigration  Reform  and  Control 
Act  of  1983. 


146 

In  recent  years,  we  have  all  been  through  an  exhaustive  legisla- 
tive and  executive  branch  discussion  about  immigration  reform.  Al- 
though disappointed  by  failure  to  enact  legislation  last  year,  we 
have  the  benefit  of  those  debates  to  chart  the  legislative  course  this 
year.  We  are  now  well  informed  on  the  issues  of  enforcement,  civil 
liberties,  cost,  social  equity,  and  labor  force  protection  important  in 
any  discussion  of  immigration  reform. 

Before  specifically  addressing  the  most  important  provisions  of 
the  Immigration  Reform  and  Control  Act  of  1983,  I  would  like  to 
begin  with  a  few,  more  general  observations.  This  legislation  would 
increase  the  law  enforcement  powers  of  the  Immigration  and  Natu- 
ralization Service  by  imposing  sanctions  on  those  who  knowingly 
hire  illegal  aliens.  And  it  would  reform  and  expedite  our  proce- 
dures to  return  those  who  come  or  remain  here  illegally.  At  the 
same  time,  the  bill  would  both  deal  realistically  with  illegal  aliens 
who  are  now  here — and  safeguard  against  discrimination — by 
granting  many  of  them  a  legal  status.  By  establishing  certain  stat- 
utory provisions  for  the  present  H-2  temporary  worker  program,  it 
acknowledges  the  likely  need  for  some  kind  of  legal  foreign  labor, 
but  would  protect  U.S.  workers. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Excuse  me,  Mr.  Attorney  General. 

May  I  ask  what's  going  on  in  the  audience?  What  is  all  this  con- 
fusion? 

If  you  would  suspend,  Mr.  Attorney  General,  just  for  a  second 
until  we  have  some  order. 

I  ask  the  audience,  to  the  extent  possible,  to  stay  seated  in  re- 
spect to  all  of  our  witnesses,  not  just  the  Attorney  General  but  all 
of  our  witnesses. 

Mr.  Attorney  General,  you  may  proceed. 

Attorney  General  Smith.  Failure  to  enact  reform  legislation  of 
this  kind  can  only  result  in  further  illegal  migration,  greater 
public  frustration  over  the  Government's  inability  to  control  our 
borders,  and  the  negative  social  and  economic  effects  occasioned  by 
so  large  a  number  of  persons  living  outside  the  law.  Each  day  lost 
in  enacting  effective  reform  legislation  makes  it  increasingly  diffi- 
cult to  remedy  these  problems.  For  all  these  reasons,  the  adminis- 
tration strongly  supports  the  enactment  of  a  balanced  and  fair  im- 
migration bill. 

At  the  root  of  illegal  immigration  is  the  ready  access  of  illegal 
entrants  and  visa  abusers  to  jobs  that  are  very  attractive  when 
compared  to  employment  opportunities  in  their  homelands.  The 
cornerstone  of  immigration  in  H.R.  1510  is  therefore  a  provision 
making  it  illegal  knowingly  to  hire  aliens  who  are  not  authorized 
to  work  in  the  United  States.  Employer  sanctions  is  the  only  re- 
maining, credible  tool  to  stop  the  flood  of  illegal  immigration.  As 
long  as  the  American  job  market  remains  open  to  them,  illegal 
aliens  will  risk:  The  dangers  of  illegal  entry,  the  cost  of  smuggling 
or  fraudulent  visas,  and  the  likelihood  of  apprehension  and  depor- 
tation. 

As  I  said  in  my  testimony  last  year: 

In  pursuing  a  law  that  will  close  the  labor  force  to  illegal  arrivals,  we  must  do  so 
in  a  manner  that  is  not  unreasonably  burdensome  in  cost  and  that  is  consistent 
with  our  values  of  individual  liberty  and  privacy. 


147 

Toward  those  ends,  the  administration  has  several  recommenda- 
tions concerning  employer  sanctions. 

We  should  work  together  as  contemplated  by  the  bill  to  insure 
the  adequacy  of  our  system  for  verifying  employment  eligibility, 
but  we  should  do  nothing  that  would  result  in  a  national  identity 
card  or  system.  The  President's  Task  Force  on  Immigration  and 
Refugee  Policy  reviewed  the  alternatives  to  the  use  of  existing  doc- 
umentation for  establishing  employment  eligibility.  As  we  indicat- 
ed last  year,  the  administration  is  willing  to  study  and  report  to 
you  on  the  need  for  and  feasibility  of  improvements  in  present  doc- 
umentation. We  would  be  prepared  to  begin  the  implementation  of 
appropriate  changes  within  3  years  of  enactment  of  this  legislation. 
This  period  will  provide  us  with  an  opportunity  to  evaluate  the  effi- 
cacy of  relying  on  existing  documentation  and  to  determine  what, 
if  any,  improvements  would  be  appropriate. 

We  believe  that  adequate  civil  penalties  should  be  imposed— per- 
haps in  the  range  of  $1,000  to  $2,000  as  provided  in  your  bill— but 
that  criminal  fines  or  prison  terms  should  be  imposed  by  a  court 
only  when  an  injunction  against  repeated  offenses  has  been  violat- 
ed. Broad  voluntary  compliance  can  be  expected,  but  substantial 
civil  fines  and  injunctions  for  a  pattern  and  practice  of  violations 
will  assure  even  greater  compliance. 

The  provisions  for  administrative  and  judicial  review  of  employer 
sanctions  violations  should  be  simplified.  The  potential  for  employ- 
ers to  seek  administrative  and  judicial  review  of  civil  penalties  and 
the  requirement  that  the  Government  affirmativly  institute  a  col- 
lection suit  to  secure  payment  of  penalties  ultimately  upheld  on 
appeal  could  so  burden  the  system  that  it  would  dramatically 
reduce  the  number  of  actions  brought.  Both  administrative  and  ju- 
dicial rights  of  appeal  should  be  limited  and  consistent  with  due 
process.  In  addition,  a  final  order  affirming  the  imposition  of  a  civil 
penalty  should  not  require  a  subsequent  action  to  secure  payment. 

We  look  forward  to  working  with  the  subcommittee  to  further 
review  these  recommendations  to  insure  that  an  employer  sanc- 
tions law  would  achieve  its  goal  of  controlling  the  unlawful  em- 
ployment of  aliens. 

The  administration  agrees  with  the  premise  behind  the  legaliza- 
tion provisions  in  H.R.  1510,  that  we  must  deal  realistically  with 
the  aliens  who  now  live  in  the  U.S.  illegally.  The  failure  to  act  re- 
alistically merely  allows  the  problem  to  grow— adding  perhaps 
500,000  new  illegal  aliens  per  year  to  an  illegal  alien  population  es- 
timated to  be  3.5  to  6  million  in  1980.  It  would  not  be  realistic  to 
attempt  widespread  deportation  or  to  allow  the  status  quo  to  con- 
tinue perpetuating  a  class  of  society  beyond  the  protections  and 
sanctions  of  law.  At  the  same  time,  we  cannot— in  fairness  to 
American  citizens,  legal  residents,  and  would-be  immigrants  wait- 
ing patiently  to  come  here  legally— provide  unduly  generous  terms 
of  legalization  or  eligibility  for  benefits  at  a  time  of  high  unemploy- 
ment and  budget  austerity.  This  bill  would  provide  aliens  who  have 
shown  a  commitment  to  becoming  permanent  members  of  our  soci- 
ety. It  is  a  sensible  and  humane  approach. 

Although  some  have  criticized  legalization  as  a  reward  for  law- 
breakers, it  represents  a  practical  decision  that  is  consistent  with 
effective  law  enforcement.  The  failure  to  include  such  a  legaliza- 


148 

tion  program  would  aggravate  enforcement  of  employer  sanctions. 
It  would  leave  in  place  those  long-term  illegal  aliens  who  are  most 
likely  to  resist  removal  from  the  United  States  by  relying  on  the 
procedural  safeguards  and  administrative  relief  available  under 
the  existing  law.  This  would  divert  important  resources  of  the  Im- 
migration and  Naturalization  Service  at  precisely  the  time  when 
its  enforcement  priority  should  be  effective  implementation  of  em- 
ployer sanctions. 

Concerning  legalization,  H.R.  1510  represents  the  limits  of  rea- 
sonable compromise — since  our  original  proposal  contained  a  10- 
year  permanent  residence  requirement.  Under  this  bill,  illegal 
aliens  who  were  in  the  U.S.  before  January  1,  1977,  would  be  eligi- 
ble for  permanent  resident  status.  Those  who  came  here  between 
1977  and  January  1,  1980,  would  be  eligible  for  temporary  resident 
status,  and  permanent  status  after  3  more  years  as  law-abiding, 
self-sufficient  residents.  Aliens  who  have  a  criminal  history,  have 
assisted  in  political  persecution,  or  are  otherwise  inadmissible 
would  not  be  eligible  for  legalization. 

The  administration  supports  the  granting  of  temporary  or  per- 
manent residency  to  those  aliens  who  meet  the  criteria  set  forth  in 
H.R.  1510. 

The  bill  would  also  amend  section  249  of  the  Immigration  and 
Nationality  Act,  by  updating  the  so-called  "registry"  date  from 
June  30,  1948,  to  January  1,  1973.  While  sympathetic  to  the  updat- 
ing of  the  "registry"  date,  we  would,  however,  recommend  against 
taking  that  action  at  this  time.  To  do  so  would  in  essence  be  to  set 
up  an  alternate  legalization  program  for  at  least  175,000  to  300,000 
aliens  who  could  demonstrate  continuous  residence  since  before 
January  1,  1973.  This  alternative  program  would  have  different 
standards  for  screening  and  would  permit  these  permanent  resi- 
dents to  qualify  immediately  for  Federal  social  welfare  programs. 

During  temporary  residency  and  the  first  3  years  of  permanent 
residency,  legalized  aliens  would — under  this  bill — be  ineligible  for 
Federal  social  welfare  programs.  Persons  requiring  assistance  be- 
cause of  age,  blindness,  or  disability,  and  those  requiring  medical 
assistance  because  of  serious  illness  or  injury  or  in  the  interest  of 
public  health,  would  be  exempted  from  ineligibility.  The  legislation 
also  authorizes  full  reimbursement  to  States  for  the  costs  of  public 
assistance  provided  to  eligible  legalized  aliens  as  well  as  payments 
to  State  educational  agencies  to  assist  in  providing  educational 
service  to  such  aliens. 

The  administration  opposes  the  exception  to  Federal  benefit  in- 
eligibility set  forth  in  H.R.  1510.  We  are  even  more  strongly  op- 
posed to  the  provision  authorizing  full  reimbursement  for  State 
and  local  cash  and  medical  assistance  to  legalized  aliens.  Those  two 
provisions  would  generate  estimated  costs  of  $4  billion  between 
1984  and  1987  compared  to  the  $1.7  billion  estimated  for  the  Senate 
bill.  At  a  time  when  the  Nation  requires  budget  austerity,  such  ex- 
traordinary added  costs  cannot  be  justified.  Further,  a  policy  for 
full  Federal  reimbursement  does  not  provide  incentives  for  cost 
control. 

A  legalization  program  is  a  sensible  and  human  response  to  the 
large  shadow  population  of  illegal  aliens  in  this  country.  The  terms 
of  the   legalization   should  emphasize  long-term  continuous  resi- 


149 

dence,  along  the  lines  of  H.R.  1510,  and  grant  legal  status  only  to 
those  who  truly  are  members  of  their  communities— in  order  to 
avoid  encouraging  additional  illegal  migration.  A  block  grant  pro- 
gram for  medical  care  and  other  support  for  the  newly  legalized 
residents  would  appropriately  reflect  the  shared  responsibility  of 
Federal,  State,  and  local  government  and  should  be  substituted  for 
the  reimbursement  provisions  currently  in  H.R.  1510. 

With  the  passage  of  the  Immigration  and  Nationality  Act  in 
1952,  Congress  authorized  the  entry  of  temporary  foreign  labor  if 
sufficient  domestic  workers  were  not  available  and  their  entry 
would  not  adversely  affect  the  wages  and  working  conditions  of 
Americans.  It  is  acknowledged  that  the  labor  needs  of  certain  sec- 
tors of  our  economy  have  been  filled  over  the  past  years  by  a  siz- 
able number  of  illegal  aliens,  who  did  not  enter  under  the  tempo- 
rary worker  provisions  of  the  act.  As  we  prohibit  the  employment 
of  illegal  aliens,  it  is  important  that  we  also  provide  a  legal  mecha- 
nism for  employers  to  hire  temporary  workers  when  they  are 
unable  to  find  American  workers. 

The  administration  supports  a  statutory  authorization  of  a  dis- 
tinct H-2  temporary  worker  program.  This  program  may  be  par- 
ticularly important  for  agriculture  during  the  transition  period 
from  dependence  on  illegal  alien  labor  to  reliance  on  domestic 
labor.  During  the  past  year,  the  Departments  of  Justice,  Labor,  and 
Agriculture  have  been  reviewing  both  the  existing  H-2  program 
and  proposed  statutory  modifications.  We  seek  a  balanced  program 
that  would  insure  a  source  of  foreign  labor,  but  would  not  exploit 
employees  or  provide  an  added  incentive  to  hire  foreign  rather 
than  resident  workers.  Where  there  are  no  American  workers  to 
fill  needed  jobs,  legislation  should  provide  a  legal  avenue  to  admit 
foreign  workers.  It  should  also  provide  safeguards  to  insure  that 
American  workers  are  not  adversely  affected  by  foreign  labor.  It 
should  protect  the  rights  and  welfare  of  all  workers. 

The  administration  also  enthusiastically  supports  measures  to 
make  immigration  adjudication  and  asylum  procedures  more  effec- 
tive and  efficient.  The  current  appeals  process,  by  allowing  multi- 
ple opportunities  for  administrative  and  judicial  review,  has  result- 
ed in  unconscionable  backlogs  and  has  seriously  undermined  the 
enforcement  of  immigration  laws. 

We  are  very  supportive  of  the  provisions  of  H.R.  1510  that  would 
allow  currently  designated  immigration  judges  to  hear  asylum 
claims  under  the  new  bill  once  they  have  received  special  training. 
I  continue  to  be  concerned,  however,  by  the  provisions  that  would 
establish  the  U.S.  Immigration  Board  as  an  independent  agency 
within  the  Department  of  Justice.  It  is  extremely  unwise  to  splin- 
ter further  the  executive's  authority  to  administer  what  was  in- 
tended to  be  an  integrated  and  coherent  body  of  immigration  law. 
The  absence  of  accountability  for  this  new  agency  would  only  com- 
pound the  management  problems  that  preceded  our  recent  reorga- 
nization efforts  and  could  further  protract  already  slow  proceed- 
ings. 

The  administration  prefers  that  the  statutory  U.S.  Immigration 
Board  established  by  H.R.  1510  remain  under  the  supervisory  au- 
thority of  the  Attorney  General— as  is  currently  the  case  with  the 
Board  of  Immigration  Appeals.  Particularly  if  the  availability  of  ju- 


150 

dicial  review  is  clarified  as  you  have  recommended,  the  desired 
independence  of  the  Board  and  the  immigration  judges  can  be 
achieved  without  the  total  loss  of  executive  oversight. 

While  continuing  to  share  the  committee's  aim  of  achieving  a 
better  adjudication  and  asylum  system,  the  administration  also  has 
reservations  about  some  of  the  provisions  currently  contained  in 
H.R.  1510. 

First,  in  order  to  preserve  flexibility  for  emergency  situations 
and  workload  changes,  the  number  of  immigration  judges  should 
not  be  fixed  by  statute. 

Second,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  U.S.  Immigration  Board  should  be 
capable  of  expansion  by  regulation  of  the  Attorney  General,  as  you 
have  provided  concerning  the  jurisdiction  of  immigration  judges. 
H.R.  1510  incorporates  the  present  regulations  on  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  Board,  but  the  Department  is  currently  considering  changes 
in  some  areas  of  the  Board's  jurisdiction.  Without  this  flexibility, 
the  Department  would  be  obliged  to  seek  legislation  when  any  ad- 
dition is  deemed  necessary  or  advisable. 

Third,  we  are  concerned  about  the  bill's  retention  of  the  adver- 
sary-type hearing  process  for  asylum  adjudications.  The  adminis- 
tration's original  proposal  attempted  to  create  a  nonadversary 
system  for  the  adjudication  of  asylum  claims.  We  continue  to  be- 
lieve that  the  current  asylum  backlog  demonstrates  the  difficulty 
of  dealing  with  these  claims  through  the  traditional  adversary 
system  and  that  a  more  nonadversarial  approach  should  be  imple- 
mented. 

Fourth,  while  appreciating  and  sharing  the  committee's  concerns 
regarding  delay  in  the  asylum  process,  we  have  grave  concerns  re- 
garding the  various  time  limits  imposed  under  the  bill.  Basically, 
compliance  with  strict  statutory  limits  upon  the  commencement 
and  decision  of  asylum  cases  may  not  be  achievable.  This  is  par- 
ticularly true  for  a  U.S.  Immigraton  Board  that  is  independent  and 
not  subject  to  the  control  of  the  Attorney  General.  The  sanction  for 
failure  to  comply  with  time  limits — release  of  a  detained  alien  into 
the  community — offers  the  public  inadequate  protection,  which 
would  become  critical  in  the  event  of  a  large-scale  concentrated  mi- 
gration that  would  overburden  the  asylum  system. 

We  appreciate  the  subcommittee's  consideration  of  these  recom- 
mendations concerning  adjudication  procedures  and  asylum.  We 
will,  of  course,  provide  whatever  additional  supporting  materials 
you  desire. 

Concerning  legal  immigration,  we  propose  two  changes:  One,  in- 
creasing the  number  of  visas  available  to  Canada  and  Mexico, 
which  should  decrease  the  number  of  illegal  entries  for  family  re- 
unification, and  two,  streamlining  the  labor  certification  process. 

This  subcommittee  and  your  counterpart  in  the  Senate  brought 
us  to  the  threshold  of  historic  action  on  immigration  reform  in  the 
last  Congress.  Your  continuing  commitment  to  that  reform  is  ex- 
emplified by  our  hearing  today — and  the  hearings  you  have  sched- 
uled during  the  next  2  weeks  to  provide  all  interested  parties  an 
opportunity  to  present  their  views  on  this  important  subject. 

The  administration  remains  strongly  convinced  that  it  is  in  the 
national  interest  that  comprehensive  immigration  reform  legisla- 
tion be  enacted  without  further  delay.  In  the  bipartisan  tradition 


151 

that  should  continue  to  dominate  debate  on  this  subject,  we  pledge 
our  support  in  achieving  that  goal.  Together  we  can  insure  an  end 
to  the  kind  of  carelessness  with  immigration  laws  about  which 
Chief  Ben  American  Horse  warned.  We  can  insure  continued  op- 
portunity for  both  old  and  new  Americans. 

Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman. 

[The  complete  statement  follows:] 

Statement  of  William  French  Smith,  Attorney  General 

Chairman  Mazzoli  and  members  of  the  Subcommittee. 

I  am  delighted  to  have  an  opportunity  to  appear  before  you  to  discuss  a  matter  on 
which  we  agree  so  fully— the  urgent  need  for  immigration  reform.  Yesterday,  I  testi- 
fied before  the  Senate  Judiciary  Subcommittee  on  Immigration  and  Refugee  Policy. 
The  scheduling  of  these  early  hearings  clearly  demonstrates  your  recognition  of  the 

need  for  reform.  .     ,  ttt    ,  •  a.     j 

Some  years  ago,  a  delegation  of  American  Indians  visited  Washington  to  drama- 
tize the  plight  of  their  people.  The  leader  of  the  delegation,  Chief  Ben  American 
Horse  of  the  Sioux,  stopped  here  at  the  Capitol  to  visit  Alben  Barkley,  who  was  then 
Vice  President  of  the  United  States.  After  a  long  discussion,  the  Chief  rose  to  leave. 
He  then  paused  for  a  moment,  looked  the  Vice  President  in  the  eye,  and  said: 
"Young  fellow,  let  me  give  you  a  little  advice.  Be  careful  of  your  immigration  laws. 
We  were  careless  with  ours. ' 

The  United  States  has  indeed  in  recent  years  been  careless  about  its  immigration 
laws.  In  spite  of  the  best  efforts  by  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service, 
those  laws  themselves  have  proved  inadequate  to  meet  the  pressure  of  ever-increas- 
ing illegal  immigration  that  even  now  threatens  to  engulf  us.  Simply  put,  we  have 
lost  control  of  our  own  borders.  As  a  result,  we  need  new  immigration  laws— and  we 
need  them  now. 

Discussing  the  need  for  immigration  reform  with  this  Committee  is,  however,  a 
little  like  describing  another  kind  of  flood  to  Noah.  During  the  97th  Congress  this 
Subcommittee  made  a  tremendous  stride  toward  that  goal.  The  Administration  ap- 
preciates your  commitment  to  this  difficult  task  and  the  prompt  introduction  in  the 
98th  Congress  of  H.R.  1510,  the  Immigration  Reform  and  Control  Act  of  1983. 

In  recent  years,  we  have  all  been  through  an  exhaustive  legislative  and  executive 
branch  discussion  about  immigration  reform.  Although  disappointed  by  failurre  to 
enact  legislation  last  year,  we  have  the  benefit  of  those  debates  to  chart  the  legisla- 
tive course  this  year.  We  are  now  all  well  informed  on  the  issues  of  enforcement, 
civil  liberties,  cost,  social  equity,  and  labor  force  protection  important  in  any  discus- 
sion of  immigration  reform. 

Before  specifically  addressing  the  most  important  provisions  of  the  Immigration 
Reform  and  Control  Act  of  1983,  I  would  like  to  begin  with  a  few,  more  general  ob- 
servations. This  legislation  would  increase  the  law  enforcement  powers  of  the  Immi- 
gration and  Naturalization  Services  by  imposing  sanctions  on  those  who  knowingly 
hire  illegal  aliens.  And  it  would  reform  and  expedite  our  procedures  to  return  those 
who  come  or  remain  here  illegally.  At  the  same  time,  the  bill  would  both  deal  real- 
istically with  illegal  aliens  who  are  now  here — and  safeguard  against  discrimina- 
tion—by granting  many  of  them  a  legal  status.  By  establishing  certain  statutory 
provisions  for  the  present  H-2  temporary  worker  program,  it  acknowledges  the 
likely  need  for  some  kind  of  legal  foreign  labor,  but  would  protect  U.S.  workers. 

Failure  to  enact  reform  legislation  of  this  kind  can  only  result  in  further  illegal 
migration,  greater  public  frustration  over  the  government's  inability  to  control  our 
borders,  and  the  negative  social  and  economic  effects  occasioned  by  so  large  a 
number  of  persons  living  outside  the  law.  Each  day  lost  in  enacting  effective  reform 
legislation  makes  it  increasingly  difficult  to  remedy  these  problems.  For  all  these 
reasons,  the  Administration  strongly  supports  the  enactment  of  a  balanced  and  fair 
immigration  bill. 

At  the  root  of  illegal  immigration  is  the  ready  access  of  illegal  entrants  and  visa 
abusers  to  jobs  that  are  very  attractive  when  compared  to  employment  opportuni- 
ties in  their  homelands.  The  cornerstone  of  immigration  control  in  H.R.  1510  is 
therefore  a  provision  making  it  illegal  knowingly  to  hire  aliens  who  are  not  author- 
ized to  work  in  the  United  States.  Employer  sanctions  is  the  only  remaining,  credi- 
ble tool  to  stop  the  flood  of  illegal  immigration.  As  long  as  the  American  job  market 
remains  open  to  them,  illegal  aliens  will  risk:  the  dangers  of  illegal  entry,  the  cost 
of  smuggling  or  fraudulent  visas,  and  the  likelihood  of  apprehension  and  deporta- 
tion. 


152 

As  I  said  in  my  testimony  last  year,  "In  pursuing  a  law  that  will  close  the  labor 
force  to  illegal  arrivals,  we  must  do  so  in  a  manner  that  is  not  unreasonably  burden- 
some in  cost  and  that  is  consistent  with  our  values  of  individual  liberty  and  priva- 
cy." Toward  those  ends,  the  Administration  has  several  recommendations  concern- 
ing employer  sanctions. 

We  should  work  together  as  contemplated  by  the  bill  to  ensure  the  adequacy  of 
our  system  for  verifying  employment  eligibility,  but  we  should  do  nothing  that 
would  result  in  a  national  identity  card  or  system.  The  President's  Task  Force  on 
Immigration  and  Refugee  Policy  reviewed  the  alternatives  to  the  use  of  existing  doc- 
umentation for  establishing  employment  eligibility  As  we  indicated  last  year,  the 
Administration  is  willing  to  study  and  report  to  you  on  the  need  for  and  feasibility 
of  improvements  in  present  documentation.  We  would  be  prepared  to  begin  the  im- 
plementation of  appropriate  changes  within  three  years  of  enactment  of  this  legisla- 
tion. This  period  will  provide  us  with  an  opportunity  to  evaluate  the  efficacy  of  rely- 
ing on  existing  documentation  and  to  determine  what,  if  any,  improvements  would 
be  appropriate. 

We  believe  that  adequate  civil  penalties  should  be  imposed — perhaps  in  the  range 
of  $1,000  to  $2,000  as  provided  in  your  bill — but  that  criminal  fines  or  prison  terms 
should  be  imposed  by  a  court  only  when  an  injunction  against  repeated  offenses  has 
been  violated.  Broad  voluntary  compliance  can  be  expected,  but  substantial  civil 
fines  and  injunctions  for  a  pattern  and  practice  of  violations  will  assure  even  great- 
er compliance. 

The  provisions  for  administrative  and  judicial  review  of  employer  sanctions  viola- 
tions should  be  simplified.  The  potential  for  employers  to  seek  administrative  and 
judicial  review  of  civil  penalties  and  the  requirement  that  the  Government  affirma- 
tively institute  a  collection  suit  to  secure  payment  of  penalties  ultimately  upheld  on 
appeal  could  so  burden  the  system  that  it  would  dramatically  reduce  the  number  of 
actions  brought.  Both  administrative  and  judicial  rights  of  appeal  should  be  limited 
and  consistent  with  due  process.  In  addition,  a  final  order  affirming  the  imposition 
of  a  civil  penalty  should  not  require  a  subsequent  action  to  secure  payment. 

We  look  forward  to  working  with  the  Subcommittee  to  further  review  these  rec- 
ommendations to  ensure  that  an  employer  sanctions  law  would  achieve  its  goal  of 
controlling  the  unlawful  employment  of  aliens. 

The  Administration  agrees  with  the  premise  behind  the  legalization  provisions  in 
H.R.  1510,  that  we  must  deal  realistically  with  the  aliens  who  now  live  in  the 
United  States  illegally.  The  failure  to  act  realistically  merely  allows  the  problem  to 
grow — adding  perhaps  500,000  new  illegal  aliens  per  year  to  an  illegal  alien  popula- 
tion estimated  to  be  3.5  to  6  million  in  1980.  It  would  not  be  realistic  to  attempt 
widespread  deportation  or  to  allow  the  status  quo  to  continue  perpetuating  a  class 
of  society  beyond  the  protections  and  sanctions  of  law.  At  the  same  time,  we 
cannot — in  fairness  to  American  citizens,  legal  residents,  and  would-be  immigrants 
waiting  patiently  to  come  here  legally — provide  unduly  generous  terms  of  legaliza- 
tion or  eligibility  for  benefits  at  a  time  of  high  unemployment  and  budget  austerity. 
This  bill  would  provide  an  opportunity  to  acquire  legal  status  for  those  illegal  aliens 
who  have  shown  a  commitment  to  becoming  permanent  members  of  our  society.  It 
is  a  sensible  and  humane  approach. 

Although  some  have  criticized  legalization  as  a  reward  for  lawbreakers,  it  repre- 
sents a  practical  decision  that  is  consistent  with  effective  law  enforcement.  The  fail- 
ure to  include  such  a  legalization  program  would  aggravate  enforcement  of  employ- 
er sanctions.  It  would  leave  in  place  those  long  term  illegal  aliens  who  are  most 
likely  to  resist  removal  from  the  United  States  by  relying  on  the  procedural  safe- 
guards and  administrative  relief  available  under  the  existing  law.  This  would  divert 
important  resources  of  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service  at  precisely  the 
time  when  its  enforcement  priority  should  be  effective  implementation  of  employer 
sanctions. 

Concerning  legalization,  H.R.  1510  represents  the  limits  of  reasonable  compro- 
mise— since  our  original  proposal  contained  a  ten-year  permanent  residence  require- 
ment. Under  this  bill  illegal  aliens  who  were  in  the  United  States  before  January  1, 
1977  would  be  eligible  for  permanent  resident  status.  Those  who  came  here  between 
1977  and  January  1,  1980,  would  be  eligible  for  temporary  resident  status,  and  per- 
manent status  after  three  more  years  as  law  abiding,  self-sufficient  residents.  Aliens 
who  have  a  criminal  history,  have  assisted  in  political  persecution,  or  are  otherwise 
inadmissible  would  not  be  eligible  for  legalization. 

The  Administration  supports  the  granting  of  temporary  or  permanent  residency 
to  those  aliens  who  meet  the  criteria  set  forth  in  H.R.  1510. 

The  bill  would  also  amend  section  249  of  the  Immigration  and  Nationality  Act,  by 
updating  the  so-called  "registry"  date  from  June  30,  1948,  to  January  1,  1973.  While 


153 

sympathetic  to  the  updating  of  the  "registry"  date,  we  would,  however  recommend 
against  taking  that  action  at  this  time.  To  do  so,  would  in  essence  be  to  set  up  an 
alternate  legalization  program  for  at  least  175,000-300,000  aliens  who  could  demon- 
strate continuous  residence  since  before  January  1,  1973.  This  alternative  program 
would  have  different  standards  for  screening  and  would  permit  these  permanent 
residents  to  qualify  immediately  for  federal  social  welfare  programs. 

During  temporary  residency  and  the  first  three  years  of  permanent  residency,  le- 
galized aliens  would— under  this  bill— be  ineligible  for  federal  social  welfare  pro- 
grams. Persons  requiring  assistance  because  of  age,  blindness,  or  disability,  and 
those  requiring  medical  assistance  because  of  serious  illness  or  injury  or  in  the  in- 
terest of  public  health,  would  be  exempted  from  ineligibility.  The  legislation  also  au- 
thorizes full  reimbursement  to  States  for  the  costs  of  public  assistance  provided  to 
eligible  legalized  aliens  as  well  as  payments  to  state  educational  agencies  to  assist  in 
providing  educational  services  to  such  aliens. 

The  Administration  opposes  the  exception  to  federal  benefit  ineligibility  set  forth 
in  H.R.  1510.  We  are  even  more  strongly  opposed  to  the  provision  authorizing  full 
reimbursement  for  state  and  local  cash  and  medical  assistance  to  legalized  aliens. 
Those  two  provisions  would  generate  estimated  costs  of  four  billion  between  1984 
and  1987  compared  to  the  1.7  billion  estimated  for  the  Senate  bill.  At  a  time  when 
the  Nation  requires  budget  austerity,  such  extraordinary  added  costs  cannot  be  jus- 
tified. Further,  a  policy  for  full  federal  reimbursement  does  not  provide  incentives 
for  cost  control. 

The  authorization  of  federal  support  for  educational  assistance  on  behalf  of  legal- 
ized aliens  is  also  unwarranted.  It  would  create  a  new  area  of  federal  responsibility 
without  addressing  any  real  need.  Only  a  few  jurisdictions  were  making  any  at- 
tempt to  distinguish  illegal  alien  children  within  their  school  population  prior  to  the 
Supreme  Court  decision  in  Plyler  v.  Doe  last  year. 

The  Administration  does  support  the  inclusion  of  a  block  grant  program  to  assist 
states  and  localities  in  providing  medical  care  or  other  welfare  services  to  newly  le- 
galized residents.  This  appropriately  reflects  shared  federal,  state,  and  local  respon- 
sibility for  social  welfare  costs  that  may  occur  with  legalization.  This  approach 
would  help  to  offset  costs  for  persons  who  become  seriously  ill  or  incapacitated  or 
otherwise  become  eligible  for  state  and  local  assistance  programs  because  of  unfore- 
seen circumstances.  It  would  not,  however,  create  an  open-ended  federal  financial 
responsibility  for  state  programs. 

Illegal  aliens  eligible  for  legalization  will  have  to  provide  evidence  of  past  and  cur- 
rent employment  in  order  to  be  granted  legal  status.  The  legalized  aliens  will  be 
paying  taxes— income,  sales,  property— to  state  and  local  governments.  They  will  be 
contributing  to  their  local  economies,  which  is  part  of  the  rationale  for  legalization. 
Consequently,  shared  responsibility  for  health  and  welfare  benefits  to  those  legal- 
ized aliens  who  qualify  under  the  terms  of  state  and  local  laws  is  appropriate. 

A  legalization  program  is  a  sensible  and  humane  response  to  the  large  shadow 
population  of  illegal  aliens  in  this  country.  The  terms  of  the  legalization  should  em- 
phasize long  term  continuous  residence,  along  the  lines  of  H.R.  1510,  and  grant  legal 
status  only  to  those  who  truly  are  members  of  their  communities— in  order  to  avoid 
encouraging  additional  illegal  migration.  A  block  grant  program  for  medical  care 
and  other  support  for  the  newly  legalized  residents  would  appropriately  reflect  the 
shared  responsibility  of  federal,  state,  and  local  government  and  should  be  substitut- 
ed for  the  reimbursement  provisions  currently  in  H.R.  1510. 

With  the  passage  of  the  Immigration  and  Nationality  Act  in  1952,  Congress  au- 
thorized the  entry  of  temporary  foreign  labor  if  sufficient  domestic  workers  were 
not  available  and  their  entry  would  not  adversely  affect  the  wages  and  working  con- 
ditions of  Americans.  It  is  acknowledged  that  the  labor  needs  of  certain  sectors  of 
our  economy  have  been  filled  over  the  past  years  by  a  sizable  number  of  illegal 
aliens,  who  did  not  enter  under  the  temporary  worker  provisions  of  the  Act.  As  we 
prohibit  the  employment  of  illegal  aliens,  it  is  important  that  we  also  provide  a 
legal  mechanism  for  employers  to  hire  temporary  workers  when  they  are  unable  to 
find  American  workers. 

The  Administration  supports  a  statutory  authorization  of  a  distinct  H-2  tempo- 
rary worker  program.  This  program  may  be  particularly  important  for  agriculture 
during  the  transition  period  from  dependence  on  illegal  alien  labor  to  reliance  on 
domestic  labor.  During  the  past  year,  the  Departments  of  Justice,  Labor,  and  Agri- 
culture have  been  reviewing  both  the  existing  H-2  program  and  proposed  statutory 
modifications.  We  seek  a  balanced  program  that  would  ensure  a  source  of  foreign 
labor,  but  would  not  exploit  employees  or  provide  an  added  incentive  to  hire  foreign 
rather  than  resident  workers.  Where  there  are  not  American  workers  to  fill  needed 
jobs,  legislation  should  provide  a  legal  avenue  to  admit  foreign  workers.  It  should 


is-RFifi    o— Rs n 


154 

also  provide  safeguards  to  ensure  that  American  workers  are  not  adversely  affected 
by  foreign  labor.  And  it  should  protect  the  rights  and  welfare  of  all  workers. 

The  Administration  also  enthusiastically  supports  measures  to  make  immigration 
adjudication  and  asylum  procedures  more  effective  and  efficient.  The  current  ap- 
peals process,  by  allowing  multiple  opportunities  for  administrative  and  judicial 
review,  has  resulted  in  unconscionable  backlogs  and  has  seriously  undermined  the 
enforcement  of  immigration  laws. 

We  are  very  supportive  of  the  provisions  of  H.R.  1510  that  would  allow  currently 
designated  immigration  judges  to  hear  asylum  claims  under  the  new  bill  once  they 
have  received  special  training.  I  continue  to  be  concerned,  however,  by  the  provi- 
sions that  would  establish  the  U.S.  Immigration  Board  as  an  independent  agency 
within  the  Department  of  Justice.  It  is  extremely  unwise  to  splinter  further  the  Ex- 
ecutive's authority  to  administer  what  was  intended  to  be  an  integrated  and  coher- 
ent body  of  immigration  law.  The  absence  of  accountability  for  this  new  agency 
would  only  compound  the  management  problems  that  preceded  our  recent  reorgani- 
zation efforts  and  could  further  protract  already  slow  proceedings. 

The  Administration  prefers  that  the  statutory  U.S.  Immigration  Board  established 
by  H.R.  1510  remain  under  the  supervisory  authority  of  the  Attorney  General— as  is 
currently  the  case  with  the  Board  of  Immigration  Appeals.  Particularly  if  the  avail- 
ability of  judicial  review  is  clarified  as  you  have  recommended,  the  desired 
independence  of  the  Board  and  the  immigration  judges  can  be  achieved  without  the 
total  loss  of  Executive  oversight. 

While  continuing  to  share  the  Committee's  aim  of  achieving  a  better  adjudication 
and  asylum  system,  the  Administration  also  has  reservations  about  some  of  the  pro- 
visions currently  contained  in  H.R.  1510. 

First,  in  order  to  preserve  flexibility  for  emergency  situations  and  workload 
changes,  the  number  of  immigration  judges  should  not  be  fixed  by  statute. 

Second,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  U.S.  Immigration  Board  should  be  capable  of  ex- 
pansion by  regulation  of  the  Attorney  General,  as  you  have  provided  concerning  the 
jurisdiction  of  immigration  judges.  H.R.  1510  incorporates  the  present  regulations 
on  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Board,  but  the  Department  is  currently  considering 
changes  in  some  areas  of  the  Board's  jurisdiction.  Without  this  flexibility,  the  De- 
partment would  be  obliged  to  seek  legislation  when  any  addition  is  deemed  neces- 
sary or  advisable. 

Third,  we  are  concerned  about  the  bill's  retention  of  the  adversary-type  hearing 
process  for  asylum  adjudications.  The  Administration's  original  proposal  attempted 
to  create  a  non-adversary  system  for  the  adjudication  of  asylum  claims.  We  continue 
to  believe  that  the  current  asylum  backlog  demonstrates  the  difficulty  of  dealing 
with  these  claims  through  the  traditional  adversary  system,  and  that  a  more  non- 
adversarial  approach  should  be  implemented. 

Fourth,  while  appreciating  and  sharing  the  Committee's  concerns  regarding  delay 
in  the  asylum  process,  we  have  grave  concerns  regarding  the  various  time  limits 
imposed  under  the  bill.  Basically,  compliance  with  strict  statutory  limits  upon  the 
commencement  and  decision  of  asylum  cases  may  not  be  achievable.  This  is  particu- 
larly true  for  a  U.S.  Immigration  Board  that  is  independent  and  not  subject  to  the 
control  of  the  Attorney  General.  The  sanction  for  failure  to  comply  with  time 
limits— release  of  a  detained  alien  into  the  community— offers  the  public  inadequate 
protection,  which  would  become  critical  in  the  event  of  a  large-scale  concentrated 
migration  that  would  overburden  the  asylum  system. 

We  appreciate  the  Subcommittee's  consideration  of  these  recommendations  con- 
cerning adjudication  procedures  and  asylum.  We  will,  of  course,  provide  whatever 
additional  supporting  materials  you  desire. 

Concerning  legal  immigration,  we  propose  two  changes:  (1)  increasing  the  number 
of  visas  available  to  Canada  and  Mexico,  which  should  decrease  the  number  of  il- 
legal entries  for  family  reunification,  and  (2)  streamlining  the  labor  certification 
process. 

This  Subcommittee  and  your  counterpart  in  the  Senate  brought  us  to  the  thresh- 
old of  historic  action  on  immigration  reform  in  the  last  Congress.  Your  continuing 
commitment  to  that  reform  is  exemplified  by  our  hearing  today— and  the  hearings 
you  have  scheduled  during  the  next  two  weeks  to  provide  all  interested  parties  an 
opportunity  to  present  their  views  on  this  important  subject. 

The  Administration  remains  strongly  convinced  that  it  is  in  the  national  interest 
that  comprehensive  immigration  reform  legislation  be  enacted  without  further 
delay.  In  the  bipartisan  tradition  that  should  continue  to  dominate  debate  on  this 
subject,  we  pledge  our  support  in  achieving  that  goal.  Together,  we  can  ensure  an 
end  to  the  kind  of  carelessness  with  immigration  laws  about  which  Chief  Ben 


155 

American  Horse  warned.  We  can  ensure  continued  opportunity  for  both  old  and 
new  Americans. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Attorney  General. 

The  Chair  will  yield  itself  5  minutes. 

We  thank  you  for  your  continuing  devotion  to  the  cause  of  re- 
forming the  Nation's  immigration  laws.  As  I  have  said  many  times, 
you  spend  as  much  time  up  on  the  Hill  as  you  probably  do  in  your 
own  office.  I  think  if  you  had  known  this  was  going  to  be  on  your 
agenda  when  the  President  proposed  2  years  ago  that  you  be  his 
Attorney  General,  you  may  have  had  a  whole  different  response; 
I'm  not  sure. 

One  of  the  constant  problems  we  had  last  year  in  dealing  with 
this  legislation  was  the  fact  that  our  members  kept  saying,  "Look, 
there's  nothing  in  this  thing  to  enforce.  Where  is  the  money,  where 
are  the  people?  They're  not  in  your  bill.  Yet,  you  say  part  of  this  is 
enforcing  the  security  of  the  border;  part  of  it  is  going  to  be  the 
application  of  people  to  enforce  employer  sanctions.' 

It  is  the  disposition  of  the  chairman  of  the  subcommittee  to  make 
recommendations  that  there  be  money  and  people  for  INS  put 
right  into  the  bill.  Would  you  believe  the  administration  could  sup- 
port a  bill  that  would  have  quite  a  few  million  dollars  and  quite  a 
few  people  to  implement  this  bill? 

Attorney  General  Smith.  Well,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  would  support 
a  supplemental  appropriation  request  if  this  program  were  passed 
in  sufficient  time  to  start  implementation  in  the  1983  fiscal  year.  If 
not,  we  would  support  a  budget  amendment  to  provide  for  the  nec- 
essary funds  to  enforce  this  program  in  the  1984  budget. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Well,  we  appreciate  that,  Mr.  Attorney  General, 
but  unfortunately  that  really  doesn't  answer  the  questions  that  are 
posed  to  us  constantly.  Of  course,  you  monitored  the  debate  and 
you  have  heard  and  read  a  lot  of  what  was  said:  The  administra- 
tion cannot  be  serious  because  if  it  were  serious  about  enforcing 
the  laws  there'd  be  money  in  the  bill  and  more  people  in  the  bill 
for  INS. 

I  appreciate  your  statement,  and  maybe  that  will  be  the  disposi- 
tion of  the  subcommittee  and  the  full  committee  and  the  House 
and  the  Congress.  But  I  am  inclined  to  think  for  myself  that  per- 
haps we  need  to  put  something  directly  in  the  bill — and  I  don't 
mean  figures  pulled  out  of  the  air.  We  do  have  some  budget  figures 
we  are  developing,  and  we  will  talk  about  them  when  we  have  the 
INS  budget  hearings  here  next  week. 

Mr.  Attorney  General,  one  of  the  other  criticisms  that  people 
brought  to  our  attention  was  this  argument:  Why  do  you  say  sanc- 
tions apply  to  every  American  employer,  when  you  know  that  99 
percent  of  the  American  people  and  employers  are  honest  and  will 
do  the  right  thing?  It's  a  1-percent  factor  of  mischievous  people. 
Cannot  you  target  your  employer  sanction  mechanism  in  order 
that  we  don't  waste  time  on  the  honest,  but  you  only  target  it  to 
the  dishonest  people? 

May  I  ask  if  you  have  thought  that  out.  Is  there  a  way  which  you 
think  the  centerpiece  of  our  bill,  which  is  employer  sanctions,  can 
be  targeted? 

Attorney  General  Smith.  Mr.  Chairman,  we  don't  think  there 
should  be  any  targeting  provisions  in  the  statute  itself.  We  think 


156 

that  really  is  an  administrative  matter,  an  enforcement  matter. 
Needless  to  say,  whatever  is  involved  in  terms  of  funds  to  finance 
this  law  enforcement  effort,  resources  will  still  have  to  be  very 
carefully  allocated.  And  we  think  that  that  is  true  in  law  enforce- 
ment generally,  which  is  something  that  should  be  handled  on  an 
administrative  basis.  We  don't  think  there's  any  effective  way  that 
that  can  be  handled  or  should  be  handled  in  the  legislation  itself. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  So  in  a  sense,  this  bill  will  be  targeted  because  you, 
through  your  Immigration  Service,  will  know  which  organizations, 
employers,  corporations,  have  been  the  most  likely  to  violate  this 
act  based  on  past  history.  Those  are  the  ones  you  will  go  at,  not  the 
so-called  "Mom  and  Pop  stores."  Essentially,  we  have  that  target- 
ing in  our  bill.  Is  that  your  answer? 

Attorney  General  Smith.  I  think  that  the  allocation  of  resources 
in  and  of  itself,  requires  a  targeting— I'm  not  sure  I  like  that 
term — but  certainly  an  emphasis  in  those  areas  where  the  viola- 
tions are  most  likely  to  occur. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Mr.  Attorney  General,  let  me  ask  you  a  question. 
You,  not  too  far  past,  have  been  in  Southeast  Asia,  including  Hong 
Kong,  where  they  do  have  employer  sanctions.  One  of  the  criti- 
cisms that  is  constantly  leveled  against  employer  sanctions  is  the 
GAO  report  which  says  allegedly  they  don't  work. 

I  have  read  that  report,  and  GAO  says  they  don't  work  in  some 
countries  because  the  countries  don't  want  them  to  work.  In  the 
countries  that  want  them  to  work,  they  will  work. 

Do  you  have  any  more  updated  information?  You  have  more  re- 
cently visited  Hong  Kong.  Do  you  have  some  response  to  that  ques- 
tion? Do  employer  sanctions  really  work?  Can  they  work? 

Attorney  General  Smith.  Yes,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  I  do.  On  the 
trip  that  you  mentioned,  I  visited,  among  others,  two  countries. 
One  was  France  and  one  was  Hong  Kong.  France  has  employer 
sanctions  which  they  have  not  enforced.  Hong  Kong  has  employer 
sanctions  which  have  been  enforced. 

The  unanimous  opinion,  at  least  of  all  the  people  we  talked  to  in 
Hong  Kong,  was  that  employer  sanctions  were  not  only  working 
but  they  were  essential  to  deal  with  the  problem  they  had  there, 
which  has  some  similarities  to  ours  because  of  their  border  with 
the  People's  Republic.  They  are  not  only  enforcing  those  employer 
sanctions,  and  successfully,  they  have  also  developed  an  identifica- 
tion card  which,  at  rather  substantial  expense,  they  are  now  in  the 
process  of  replacing  with  an  even  more  secure  card. 

In  France,  as  I  say,  they  have  employer  sanctions  which,  at  least 
until  recently,  have  not  been  enforced.  And  I  think  that's  the  dif- 
ference. . 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  My  time  has  expired.  May  I  ask  you:  Is  it  the  in- 
tention of  this  administration,  were  this  law  to  pass,  to  enforce  em- 
ployer sanctions? 

Attorney  General  Smith.  Indeed  so. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you. 

The  gentleman  from  California  is  recognized  for  5  minutes. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

I'd  like  to  echo  the  chairman's  comments,  Mr.  Attorney  General, 
the  fact  that  we  appreciate  the  efforts  that  you  and  the  administra- 
tion have  made  and  continue  to  make  in  moving  historic  reform  of 


157 

the  immigration  laws  of  this  country.  We  are  just  about  30  years 
overdue,  I  think,  on  this.  Past  administrations,  whether  Democrat 
or  RepubUcan,  have,  for  whatever  reason,  found  it  to  be  required  to 

avoid  this  issue.  ,      ,    ,  r  x-      • 

So  I  think  the  administration  is  to  be  applauded  for  contmumg 

this  fight. 

I  was  one  of  those  who  thought  if  we  did  not  pass  the  bill  last 
year,  the  prospect  for  passing  it  this  year  would  be  very  poor, 
indeed.  But  based  on  the  debate  we  had  on  the  floor  and  the  discus- 
sions of  many  people  who  were  not  then  in  a  position  to  support 
the  bill,  I  think  it  suggests  we  have  a  much  better  chance  this  Con- 
gress than  we  had  the  last  of  passing  it.  I  think  we  need  to  keep 

the  pressure  on.  .  ,      ,         i        j 

One  of  the  things  I  noticed  in  a  news  article  the  other  day  was 
the  fact  that  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service  and  the 
Social  Security  Administration  have  embarked  on  a  new  coopera- 
tive effort  for  an  exchange  of  information. 

Based  on  what  I  have  have  read,  I  hope  that  is  the  case,  because 
it  moves  us  toward  something  we  have  been  talking  about  for  some 
time— avoiding  a  national  identity  card  or  system  but  yet  showing 
that  somehow  we  are  serious  about  those  means  of  identification 
that  would  be  utilized  in  the  effort  that  we  are  going  to  establish 
under  this  bill.  o  t    • 

Is  that  cooperative  effort  that  I  read  about  a  reality?  Is  it  some- 
thing that  is  proposed?  Is  it  in  effect  or  will  it  be  in  effect  in  the 
near  future? 

Attorney  General  Smith.  We,  in  a  variety  of  different  areas,  have 
emphasized  cooperation  in  the  law  enforcement  area.  And  certainly 
the  effort  that  you  have  just  referred  to,  which  is  under  study,  is 
an  example  of  our  efforts.  I  suppose  the  most  dramatic  area  is  m 
drug  enforcement  where  really  almost  for  the  first  time  we  have 
undertaken  to  put  together  a  cooperative  effort  among  all  of  the 
agencies—and  there  are  a  host  of  them— that  deal  with  drug  en- 
forcement. The  same  thing  would  certainly  be  true  here. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  Well,  if  the  administration  is  going  to  continue 
the  strong  position  it's  taken  against  a  national  identification 
card— I  think  we  all  agree  we  don't  want  a  national  ID  card— I  still 
happen  to  think  we  have  to  do  something  to  have  an  employment 
card  which  most  naturally  would  seem  to  be  the  social  security 

card. 

I  would  hope  we  are  moving  in  the  direction  of  closer  cooperation 
between  INS  and  Social  Security.  Since  that  is  one  of  the  docu- 
ments we  have  to  rely  on,  we  have  a  little  more  reason  to  believe 
in  the  credibility  of  that  document. 

Attorney  General  Smith.  We  certainly  agree  with  that.  We 
think,  as  far  as  the  identity  card  is  concerned,  we  really  need  some 
experience  using  currently  existing  identifiers  to  see  how  they 
work  and  to  see  what  the  percentage  of  fraud  turns  out  to  be.  Cer- 
tainly we  need  to  take  strong  measures  against  those  who  are  in- 
volved in  the  counterfeit  document  business. 

But  in  terms  of  the  card  itself,  if  you  have  the  most  noncounter- 
feitable  card  possible— and  I'm  not  sure  there  is  such  a  thing— it 
doesn't  do  any  good  if  it's  built  on  a  foundation  of  sand.  In  other 
words,  if  that  card  is  based  upon  the  basic  documents  that  we  now 


158 

talk  about,  such  as  birth  certificates,  drivers'  licenses,  and  so  on, 
which  are  in  some  cases  easily  counterfeited,  then  we  haven't 
achieved  a  great  deal. 

So  it's  a  matter,  really,  of  looking  at  the  whole  problem.  I  really 
don't  think  that  we  can  come  to  any  firm  conclusions  on  that, 
other  than  conceptual  conclusions,  until  we  have  some  experience. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  Mr.  Attorney  General,  as  you  may  know,  the  ABA 
last  month  came  out  in  opposition  to  employer  sanctions  this  was 
somewhat  of  a  surprise  to  me,  as  a  member  of  the  ABA.  I  certainly 
know  we  were  never  polled  on  that.  This  was  the  action  of  whoever 
happened  to  be  remaining  at  the  closing  days  of  the  debate  in  the 
House  of  Delegates. 

Were  you  requested  to  appear  before  the  ABA  and  give  your 
views  on  employer  sanctions? 

Attorney  General  Smith.  No,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  I  was  as  sur- 
prised as  you  were  when  I  read  that,  since  the  ABA  has  really  sup- 
ported immigration  reform  since  at  least  1976.  And  what  caused 
their  change  in  position,  I  really  don't  know.  I  will  have  to  say  I 
am  not  unduly  impressed  with  the  reasons  given  for  the  change,  if 
what  I  read  in  the  paper  is  correct. 

Mr,  LuNGREN.  I  thank  you  for  your  comments,  because  I  checked 
with  the  chairman  and  he  was  not  requested  by  the  ABA  to  appear 
before  them  and  talk  on  that  issue.  As  the  ranking  member,  I  was 
not  asked,  and  you  as  the  Attorney  General  was  not  asked.  I 
wonder  if  an  organization  that  is  so  careful  about  indentured  rules 
and  so  forth  ought  to  so  cavalierly  take  a  decision  that  is  so  impor- 
tant with  respect  to  an  issue  that  must  be  addressed  in  this  Con- 
gress. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Would  the  gentleman  yield? 

Was  this  decision  of  the  ABA  made  before  or  after  their  decision 
that  a  lawyer  had  no  responsibility  to  protect  the  public  against 
the  predatory  tactics  of  a  dishonest  client?  Was  that  before  or  after 
that  decision? 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  As  I  understand,  though,  that  only  goes  as  long  as 
your  fee  is  paid.  [Laughter.] 

If  you're  not  paid,  you  are  no  longer  obligated. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  If  the  fee  isn't  paid,  you  can  divulge;  and  if  you  are 
paid  you  can  indulge. 

Mr.  Smith.  If  the  gentleman  would  yield,  that's  only  personal 
now.  Business  is  a  different  set  of  ethics. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I'm  sorry;  I  appreciate  that. 

Would  the  gentleman  from  California  yield? 

Mr.  Fish.  There  is  a  summer  meeting  of  the  ABA,  and  it  oc- 
curred to  me  we  could  go  in  and  straighten  out  the  record. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  gentleman  from  Texas  is  recognized  for  5  min- 
utes. 

Mr.  Hall.  I  am  reminded  of  the  time  when  Melvin  Belli  repre- 
sented Jack  Ruby  in  Texas,  and  the  American  Bar  Association  was 
not  too  happy  with  Belli's  representation,  so  they  issued  a  very 
strong  warning  that  if  he  continued  such  he  would  not  be  able  to 
continue  being  a  member  of  the  American  Bar  Association.  He 
said,  "That's  like  being  told  you  can't  join  the  Book  of  the  Month 
Club."  [Laughter.] 


159 

Mr.  Attorney  General,  I  want  to  ask  you  one  or  two  questions. 
On  page  8  of  your  statement  you  state  that  the  authorization  of 
Federal  support  for  educational  assistance  is  not  warranted.  That 
is,  I  presume,  the  children  of  illegal  aliens. 

The  next  paragraph  states  you  do  support  the  inclusion  of  a 
block  grant  program  to  assist  States  and  localities  in  providing 
medical  care  or  other  welfare  services. 

Well,  my  only  question  is.  What  is  the  difference  or  distinction 
between  aid  for  the  body  and  aid  for  the  mind?  How  can  you  say 
you're  in  favor  of  taking  care  of  the  medical  services  of  these 
people  but  you  can't  take  care  of  trying  to  educate  their  children? 

Attorney  General  Smith.  Well,  we  are  dealing  with  a  specific 
problem  here  that  has  to  be  dealt  with  in  a  balanced  way.  There 
are  a  host  of  things  that  a  good  many  people  would  like  to  see  done 
in  a  variety  of  different  ways,  and  we  have  very  limited  resources. 
We  have  a  particular  situation  here  involving  people  who  are  here 
illegally,  who  came  here  illegally.  There  are  certain  obligations 
that  we  have  in  that  respect.  And  we  have  limited  resources.  And 
so  we  have  to  make  determinations  and  choices. 

Mr.  Hall.  But  aren't  you  dealing  with  the  same  children  of  the 
same  people,  and  you're  saying,  "We'll  take  care  of  them  medically 
but  we  will  not  take  care  of  them  educationally." 

Attorney  General  Smith.  We're  saying  we'll  take  care  of 
them 

Mr.  Hall.  How  can  you  draw  that  distinction? 

Attorney  General  Smith.  Well,  if  you  look  at  this  whole  immigra- 
tion program,  it  is  one  of  making  distinctions,  and  in  some  cases 
distinctions  that  really  represent  compromise  more  than  anything 
else. 

As  I  say,  we  have  very  limited  resources  that  we  can  dispense 
here,  and  we  have  to  take  care  of  those  situations  where  the  need 
is  greatest.  It's  not  a  matter  of  just  treating  this  group  as  though 
we  had  unlimited  resources.  We  are  dealing  here  with  an  immigra- 
tion program,  not  a  social  welfare  program,  but  we  have  to  recog- 
nize there  are  social  aspects  to  it.  And  we  think  that  the  balance 
that  has  been  struck  here  is  the  best  one  under  the  circumstances. 

Mr.  Hall.  Well,  if  the  bill  is  passed,  which  calls  for  the  granting 
of  this  amnesty  to  these  illegal  aliens — and  I'm  living  in  a  part  of 
the  country  where  we  could  very  easily  be  inundated  by  children  of 
illegal  aliens  who  come  here  under  this  process — under  those  sets 
of  circumstances  can  you  envision  where  it  might  be  necessary  for 
the  Government  to  come  in  and  help  these  school  districts  try  to 
educate  these  children? 

Attorney  General  Smith.  What  I'm  saying  is  that  when  you  say 
"come  in,"  we  are  really  talking  about  people  who  are  not  "coming 
in"  but  people  who  have  been  here — at  least  those  who  will  achieve 
permanent  resident  status — since  January  1,  1977.  These  are 
people  who  are  already  part  of  their  communities.  They  are  people 
who  are  in  essence  self-supporting  and  people  who,  by  and  large, 
are  taking  care  of  their  own  dependents. 

Mr.  Hall.  All  right.  Getting  on  to  something  else,  I  have  always 
had  a  problem  in  my  mind  about  not  enough  people  on  the  border 
to  enforce  the  law  that  we  now  have  to  keep  people  from  coming 
across  the  Rio  Grande.  And  in  the  record  last  year,  during  the 


160 

lameduck  session,  I  had  some  information  given  to  me  by  INS  in 
which  they  gave  me,  I  think,  some  very  pertinent  facts  on  the  dis- 
tances of  the  coastline  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico, 
about  1,900  miles.  The  Canadian  border  is  3,987  miles.  The  coast- 
line is  11,000  miles.  And  they  go  on  to  talk  about  the  number  of 
border  patrol  in  the  United  States  on  duty  as  of  the  end  of  October 
1982—2,319,  and  2,498  had  been  authorized— but  that  there  were 
insufficient  funds  and  there  had  not  been  money  appropriated  to 
pay  for  the  additional  people  that  this  committee  and  this  Congress 
said  should  be  on  force. 

Now,  I  broke  down  the  differences  in  the  miles  per  agent.  It  indi- 
cated there  is  one  man  for  every  12  miles  of  border,  and  that  at 
any  one  given  time — and  this  is  part  of  my  testimony — after  you 
take  into  consideration  shift  sizes,  weekends,  sick  leaves,  you  have 
only  155  officers  on  line  duty — line  duty  is  at  the  boundary  be- 
tween the  States  and  Mexico — at  any  given  time  between  Mexico 
and  the  United  States. 

Now,  155  divided  into  1,933  miles  of  border  territory  gives  us 
12.47  miles  per  officer. 

Mr.  Attorney  General,  do  you  think  if  we  had  more  people  on  the 
border  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico  that  we  couldn't 
have  a  better  handle  and  a  better  control  over  what  comes  across 
that  border? 

Attorney  General  Smith.  Well,  there  are  several  responses  to 
that. 

First  of  all,  the  areas  where  the  illegal  aliens  come  across  are 
concentrated.  Although  it  is  almost  2,000  miles,  the  transit  takes 
place  in  fairly  well  defined  areas. 

But  even  if  that  were  not  the  case,  even  if  you  had  a  Maginot 
Line  built  along  those  2,000  miles,  you  still  wouldn't  stop  the  prob- 
lem. Because  you  still  have  11,000  miles  of  coastline.  If  you  were 
able  to  seal  that  border — which  there  is  no  way  to  do — there  are 
always  alternate  ways.  We  have  seen  that,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  with 
drug  traffic.  You  stop  it  in  one  area  and  it  goes  somewhere  else. 

So  even  if  you  could  seal  that  border  you  would  not  have  solved 
the  problem.  But  needless  to  say,  there  is  no  way  to  seal  the 
border.  It  wouldn't  make  any  difference  if  you  doubled,  tripled,  or 
quadrupled  the  number  of  people  that  we  have  there.  It  would 
make  a  difference  in  apprehensions,  to  be  sure. 

Like  the  chairman,  I  have  been  around  the  country  talking  about 
this  subject  a  good  deal,  and  I  found  substantial  sentiment  in  Texas 
to  the  effect  that  they  didn't  want  to  stop  the  movement  back  and 
forth,  because  the  movement  is  back  and  forth,  not  just  one  way. 
Of  course,  the  net  is  this  way,  but  there  is  a  movement  back  and 
forth  and  there  are  many  people  who  don't  want  to  stop  that. 

But  that  is  neither  here  nor  there. 

Last  year  in  the  1982  budget  we  did  increase  our  border  patrol  by 
some  170  positions  through  a  supplemental  appropriation  of  some 
$65  million,  as  I  recall.  We'd  like  to  be  able  to  do  more  there.  But 
any  idea  that  this  is  going  to  solve  the  immigration  problem  is  just 
really  dreaming. 

The  fact  that  you  cannot  really  block  that  border  is  the  reason 
why  an  employer  sanctions  law  is  the  only  remaining  credible  tool 
to  get  at  this  problem. 


161 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  gentleman's  time  has  expired,  but  I  would  like 
to  tell  the  gentleman  from  Texas  that  he  brings  up  a  very  impor- 
tant point,  and  it  is  going  to  be  before  the  subcommittee.  There  are 
several  different  formulations  and  initiatives  to  help  strengthen 
that  border. 

The  gentleman  from  New  York  is  recognized  for  5  mmutes. 

Mr.  Fish.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  Welcome,  Mr.  Attorney 

General.  ,11  -j 

It  should  be  evident  to  you  from  everything  that  has  been  said  so 
far  that  there  is  a  strong  bipartisan  support  in  the  subcommittee 
for  a  reform  bill.  And  I  think  there  are  two  areas  where  you  could 
help  us.  They  both  were  mentioned.  I  just  want  to  underscore 

them.  .  1      r      XT-  • 

There  are  some  critics  of  employer  sanctions  who  tor  their  own 
reasons  cite  inadequate  border  enforcement,  and  they  ask  for  prior 
enforcement  capability  as  a  framework  of  this  legislation.  And,  of 
course,  this  prior  enforcement  capability  has  also  been  commented 
on  by  the  Select  Commission. 

So  with  all  due  respect  to  what  you  just  said  in  response  to  the 
gentleman  from  Texas,  I  do  recall— I  can't  think  of  the  name  of  the 
operation— there  was  some  6  or  8  years  ago  a  special  operation  to 
which  a  number  of  border  patrol  personnel  were  transferred,  and 
there  was  a  marked  drop  in  the  people  coming  across  and  a 
marked  increase  in  apprehensions  because  of  the  enforcement  ca- 
pability. 

I  wouldn't  be  at  all  surprised  if  this  subcommittee  did  increase 
the  personnel  in  the  budget  request.  Congress  has  always  been  very 
supportive  of  our  activities.  And  I  think  you  could  help  the  bill  if 
you  would  support  our  action  in  that  regard. 

The  other  thing  the  chairman  mentioned  that  is  constantly 
thrown  at  us  is  the  GAO  report  that  in  certain  foreign  countries 
employer  sanctions  have  been  ineffective  because  of  the  lack  of  re- 
sources for  inforcement.  And  they  cite  this  experience  to  us  as  an 
argument  against  a  new  provision  for  employer  sanctions. 

The  chairman  asked  you  about  your  determination  to  see  that 
when  this  bill  is  enacted,  that  this  will  not  be  U.S.  experience  but 
the  law  will  be  enforced.  And  I  think  it  would  be  very  helpful  if  we 
could  have  a  letter  from  you  to  this  effect,  that  it  is  your  determi- 
nation to  see  that  the  law  is  made  effective. 

If  I  could  turn  your  attention  to  page  7  of  your  testimony,  "The 
administration  opposes  the  exception  to  Federal  benefit  ineligibility 
set  forth  in  H.R.  1510." 

As  you  know,  during  the  period  of  alienage,  temporary  residence, 
as  well  as  the  3  years  of  permanent  residence,  the  bill  does  not 
permit  financial  assistance  under  Federal  law— medical  assistance, 
food  stamps,  et  cetera. 

Then  carved  out  on  line  14,  page  83,  is  the  exception.  And  the 
exception  is,  "In  the  case  of  assistance  provided  to  aliens,  deter- 
mined in  accordance  with  regulations  by  the  Attorney  General,  to 
require  such  assistance  because  of  age'  —they're  talking  of  blind- 
ness and  disability  of  people  over  65— "or  medical  assistance  re- 
quired in  the  interests  of  public  health  or  because  of  serious  illness 
or  injury." 


162 

Well,  that  was  a  minimum  we  included  in  the  bill  in  the  last 
Congress  in  response  to  the  cries  from  Governors  and  mayors  as  to 
the  financial  burden  that  they  would  incur  if  we  did  not  have  any 
exception  to  ruling  out  of  Federal  assistance  during  the  period  of 
temporary  residence,  plus  the  3  years  thereafter. 

I  fear  that  we  will  find  a  strong  opposition  to  legislation  from 
major  groups  like  the  Conference  of  Mayors  and  the  League  of 
Cities  and  the  Governors  if  we  don't  meet  their  very  valid  concerns 
that  we  are  backing  off  on  assistance  that  they  look  to  from  the 
Federal  Government. 

And  you  do  come  back  part  way  with  your  recommendation  for  a 
block  grant  for  medical  care  and  welfare  services  to  newly  legal- 
ized, but  that  doesn't  meet  the  problem  of  the  people  who  are  on  a 
temporary  status. 

I  do  appreciate  your  third  opportunity  to  help  us.  It  is  a  terribly 
difficult  task  of  meeting  the  concerns  of  such  a  broad  constituency 
as  this  bill  has. 

I  know  in  my  own  State  of  New  York  and  the  city  of  New  York, 
the  financial  burdens  would  be  enormous. 
Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  thank  the  gentleman. 
The  gentleman  from  Florida  is  recognized  for  5  minutes. 
Mr.  Smith.  Attorney  General  Smith,  frankly  I  am  very  dismayed 
about  the  comments  in  your  prepared  remarks  on  pages  7  and  8,  to 
carry  further  what  the  gentleman  from  Texas  said,  the  line  of 
questioning  he  started,  and  then  what  the  gentleman  from  New 
York  introduced. 

In  Florida  at  the  present  time  whole  local  and  State  resources  in 
this  area  of  social  programs  are  strained  to  the  limit  with  the  reali- 
ty that,  notwithstanding  whether  they  are  legal,  illegal,  here  right- 
fully, here  wrongfully,  there  are  large  numbers  of  people  who  are 
being  taken  care  of  by  the  State  and  local  governments  because 
they  require  some  care,  and  you  just  can't  turn  your  backs  on 
people. 

And  over  the  last  number  of  years  in  our  State,  we  have  seen  the 
Federal  Government  abrogate  its  responsibilities  considerably  in 
terms  of  reimbursing  to  the  State  and  local  governments  for  what 
is  essentially  a  national  problem. 

When  the  Mariel  and  Haitian  boatloads  came,  they  were  treated 
as  a  national  problem— with  the  newspapers,  television,  all 
media— and  yet,  right  now  there  is  very  little,  if  any,  money  flow- 
ing from  the  Federal  Government  to  pay  back  the  taxpayers  of  my 
State  for  the  enormous  amount  of  extra  dollars  they  have  had  to 
put  into  the  system.  And  I  frankly  do  not  understand  your  abrogat- 
ing the  responsibility  whether  or  not  everybody  turns  a  profit  at 
the  Federal  level.  I  can  tell  you  as  a  former  State  legislator  we 
have  worse  budgetary  problems  at  the  local  level  because  as  bad  as 
it  is  at  the  local  level,  the  Federal  Government  is  now  pulling  out 
official  funds  as  well. 

And  I  really  don't  understand  how  you  can  just  literally  shut 
your  eyes  to  the  problems  that  the  local  governments  are  having 
and  the  State  governments  are  having  in  terms  of  providing  serv- 
ices when  they  have  to  be  provided  for  humanitarian  reasons. 

Jackson  Memorial  Hospital  is  a  public  trust  hospital  in  Dade 
County  and  has  $14  million  of  bad  debt  for  immigrant  health  care. 


163 

Hollywood  Memorial,  a  public  hospital,  has  $8  million  in  bad 
debt  which  last  year  required  a  tax  increase  for  the  taxing  district 
of  the  hospital  of  101  percent. 

Now,  in  light  of  those  figures,  and  in  light  of  the  fact  that  hu- 
manitarian needs  require  that  many  of  these  people  be  given  medi- 
cal care  and,  as  the  gentleman  from  Texas  talked  about,  education- 
al responsibilities  so  that  these  immigrants  are  not  bound  into  the 
status  of  no  education,  why  doesn't  the  Federal  Government  pro- 
vide some  help,  look  favorably  upon  giving  the  States  some  help  to 
the  local  governments  who  are  funding  with  local  dollars  a  Federal 
problem? 

Attorney  General  Smith.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  you  mentioned  that 
local  and  State  governments  have  financial  problems.  There  is  no 
question  about  that.  The  Federal  Government  also  has  the  same 
problems.  And  it  is  incumbent  upon  us  to  exercise  discipline  at  this 
level  as  is  true  with  State  and  local  governnent. 

What  we  are  proposing  here  is  a  balanced  effort.  We  are  not 
withdrawing— as  a  matter  of  fact,  this  program  includes  a  block 
grant  program  that  would  cost  $1.1  billion  or  a  total  of  $1.7  billion 
over  4  years. 

As  I  mentioned  in  the  statement,  these  people  we  are  legaliz- 
ing—are by  large  self  supporting— and  these  are  the  people  we  are 
talking  about.  ^  , 

Mr.  Smith.  I'm  talking  about  people  right  now.  That  s  what  I  m 
talking  about.  Let's  get  away  from  the  realities  of  what  may 
happen  in  the  future.  Let's  talk  about  what  is  actually  happening 
now.  We  have  hundreds  of  thousands  of  illegal  aliens  in  my  home 
State,  in  the  counties  that  make  up  my  congressional  district.  And 
the  Federal  Government  is  doing  literally  nothing  to  help  the  State 
and  local  people  remove  the  financial  burden  from  what  is  a  Feder- 
al problem.  .  n    rm 

As  long  as  we  don't  scream,  you  shut  your  eyes  to  it.  Well,  1 11 
tell  you,  my  people  are  fed  up.  They  need  to  provide  the  services, 
just  on  a  humanitarian  basis  alone,  and  we  are  getting  no  help 
from  the  Federal  Government  and  we  think  it's  wrong— dead 
wrong. 

Attorney  General  Smith.  Of  course,  our  concern  here  is  this  im- 
migration program,  and  the  problem  that  exists  now  is  a  separate 
and  independent  item. 

Insofar  as  this  immigration  program  is  concerned,  what  we  are 
proposing  is  that  State  and  Federal  and  local  government  should 
jointly  bear  the  burden— and  it  is  a  burden,  and  it  is  a  problem, 
and  something  has  to  be  done  about  it;  there's  no  question  about  it. 

But  the  Federal  Government  here  is  proposing  a  block  grant  for 
4  years  in  a  substantial  amount.  The  people  we  are  talking  about 
are  going  to  be  working  and  paying  taxes  in  Florida  and  every- 
where else,  and  so  the  States  and  localities  will  be  benefitting  from 
those  taxes  as  well  as  the  Federal  Government.  This  should  be  a 
shared  burden,  the  way  we  look  at  it. 

Mr.  Smith.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  could  just  follow  that  up.  I  know 
my  time  is  up. 

Mr.  Attorney  General,  let  us  assume  that  we  go  through  this— 
that  this  bill  is  passed,  that  block  grant  program  goes  into  effect. 
We  already  get  x  amount  of  dollars  under  the  block  grant  program. 


164 

The  chairman  pointed  out  more  specifically  that  generally  under 
these  legalization  or  amnesty  programs,  sometimes  only  as  much 
as  10  or  15  percent  of  the  people  eligible  come  forward,  meaning 
that  a  large  number  of  illegal  aliens  still  remain  in  the  under- 
ground, do  not  pay  taxes,  do  not  get  involved  in  the  mainstream. 

These  people  are  still  a  national  problem.  I  don't  care  how  you 
want  to  convert  that  into  a  local  problem  when  200,000  refugees 
wash  up  on  shore  in  just  a  few  weeks  in  any  given  State.  That,  sir, 
is  a  Federal  problem,  in  my  estimation.  Citizens  of  that  State 
shouldn't  have  to  be  asked  to  take  the  responsibility  for  them. 

Now,  assuming  all  of  this  work,  we  provide  services,  and  then 
one  day  the  block  grant  runs  out.  Do  we  just  close  our  eyes,  shut 
the  door,  and  tell  these  people  we're  sorry?  We  had  a  large  out- 
break of  tuberculosis  in  Florida,  but  we  ran  out  of  dollars,  so  we're 
just  going  to  stop  providing  medical  treatment;  or  we're  not  going 
to  educate  the  children  because  we've  taken  it  enough  and  there's 
no  money  coming  in  from  the  Federal  Government. 

You  know,  the  block  grant  programs  are  always  a  wonderful  way 
of  shifting  responsibility,  "Give  them  the  bucks  and  that's  it."  But 
when  that  money  runs  out,  what  are  we  going  to  do?  We'll  fall 
back  on  the  same  problem.  A  humanitarian  need  and  an  actual 
physical  need  and  actual  medical  need,  and  no  help  again. 

I  frankly  think,  Mr.  Attorney  General,  that  you  are  abrogating 
your  responsibility  in  the  future  the  same  way  you  have  abrogated 
it  now,  and  I  am  extremely  unhappy  about  that. 

Attorney  General  Smith.  Let  me  just  correct  the  record  to  a  cer- 
tain degree  here,  and  that  is  that  the  Federal  Government  did  bear 
the  burden  in  connection  with  the  Mariel  boatlift.  I  don't  remem- 
ber exactly  the  term  that  was  utilized — legal  entrants,  Cuban-Hai- 
tian entrants.  The  Federal  Government  bore  the  burden  of  carry- 
ing those  people.  That,  of  course,  was  the  principal  influx  into  Flor- 
ida. Since  that  time,  because  of  measures  we  have  taken,  that 
influx  has  been  substantially  diminished. 

In  terms  of  the  overall  relationship  of  Federal,  State,  and  local 
government  concerning  welfare  generally,  that,  of  course,  is  an- 
other matter. 

Mr.  Smith.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  thank  the  gentleman,  and  thank  you,  Mr.  Attor- 
ney General. 

Just  a  couple  of  quick  questions. 

Mr.  Attorney  General,  when  your  Immigration  Service  comes  up 
on  the  Hill,  I'd  like  to  have  some  figures  as  to  the  number  of 
people  it  would  take  to  patrol  the  border  adequately.  Now,  it  would 
never  be  hermetically  sealed.  It  cannot  and  should  not  be.  At  the 
same  time,  it  ought  to  be  patrolled  better  than  it  is  today — and  I 
think  the  gentleman  from  Texas  is  getting  into  that. 

I  would  like  to  have  some  hard  figures.  I  have  some  data,  with- 
out even  putting  it  into  the  record,  that  we  have  developed.  But  I 
think  when  your  people  come  up  they  ought  to  have  that  informa- 
tion for  us.  I  think  it  is  the  disposition  of  this  subcommittee  to  put 
something  in  the  bill,  in  order  that  the  Immigration  Service  can 
answer  the  question  about  actually  policing  the  border  and  interi- 
or. Unless  you  do  that,  the  legalization  programs  and  other  pro- 


165 

grams  are  perhaps  going  to  act  as  inadvertent  lures,  and  we  don't 
want  that  to  exist. 

Attorney  General  Smith.  We'd  be  glad  to  obtain  that. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Mr.  Attorney  General,  would  the  administration 
support  a  one-date  legalization  program? 

A  one  cutoff  date  legalization  program.  Currently  there  is  a  two- 
tiered  program.  The  bill  before  us  contains  two  dates— 1977  and 
1980.  But  some  have  proposed  1981,  one  date;  some  proposed  1982, 
one  date;  some  will  probably  propose  1983,  one  date. 

Would  the  administration  support  a  one-date  system,  assuming 
there  could  be  some  very  rigorous  screening  of  the  people  who  have 
come  here  before  that  date,  not  so  much  for  residency,  because  that 
would  in  effect  end  the  residency  as  one  big  requirement,  but  more 
for  their  work  habits,  their  personal  habits,  their  track  record  for 
having  run  afoul  of  the  law  in  the  time  they've  been  here,  the  like- 
lihood of  not  being  public  charges. 

Is  there  a  way  to  handle  this  with  one  date  with  sufficient  scruti- 
ny of  the  people  who  would  be  here  prior  to  the  single  date? 

Attorney  General  Smith.  That  is  a  very  difficult  question  to 
answer  alone. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Perhaps  you  could  supply  it. 

Attorney  General  Smith.  It  would  depend  on  the  date,  it  would 
also  depend  on  the  overall  program. 

Our  original  proposal  you  could  call  a  single-date  proposal.  That 
is  the  one  that  the  President's  task  force  submitted,  but  with  some 
variations.  But  I  don't  think  you  can  answer  that  question  except 
in  terms  of  the  overall  program.  We'd  be  glad,  certainly,  to  discuss 
that. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Would  the  administration  support  a  sunset  provi- 
sion on  employer  sanctions? 

Attorney  General  Smith.  We  do  not  think  that  that  is  the  way  to 
go  as  far  as  this  program  is  concerned.  We  think  if  there  is  a  prob- 
lem—and we  don't  think  there  is  a  problem  because  we  have 
looked  into  that  carefully— but  if  there  is  a  problem  that  the 
sunset  provision  is  designed  to  cure,  I  think  it  should  be  cured  in 
the  legislation.  To  have  a  program  such  as  this  sunset  in  a  few 
years,  to  me  just  does  not  make  sense.  We  are  talking  here  about  a 
long-term  public-interest  program  which,  to  be  sure,  cuts  across  a 
host  of  short-term  special  interests,  I  guess  you'd  call  them.  We  all 
have  viewpoints  across  the  spectrum  on  programs  such  as  this. 

And  I  think  when  you  consider  the  effort  that  has  gone  into  this 
bill,  not  only  the  original  Select  Commission  and  the  President's 
task  force,  and  then  what  happened  during  the  last  session  of  Con- 
gress—it seems  to  me  with  that  extensive  consideration,  we  should 
be  able  to  come  up  with  a  program  that  we  can  install  as  a  perma- 
nent program.  I  think  the  country  badly  needs  that,  and  that's 
what  I  think  we  should  go  after. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you.  My  time  has  expired. 

Does  the  gentleman  have  a  comment? 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  I'd  like  to  just  comment  on  the  gentleman  from 
Florida's  comments.  Florida  is  obviously  very  directly  impacted  by 
the  illegal  immigration.  It  was  highlighted  by  the  Cuban-Haitian 
experience.  And  I  guess  that's  what  showed  what  you  had  to  do  to 
move  around  this  place. 


166 

In  California  and  the  Southwest,  per  capita,  in  terms  of  total 
numbers  of  illegal  aliens,  we  have  far  more  than  any  other  region. 
When  it  was  merely  a  Southwest  experience  there  appeared  to  be 
very  little  action  in  other  parts  of  the  country  toward  moving  on 
the  immigration  issue.  Unfortunately,  it  took  the  Mariel  boat  crisis 
to  make  it  a  more  nationalized  issue. 

Mr.  Attorney  General,  in  terms  of  what  you  have  said  about  op- 
posing exemptions  to  the  Federal  benefit  ineligibility  set  forth  in 
H.R.  1510,  I  would  just  like  to  followup  on  what  Mr.  Fish  said. 
Many  of  us  felt  that  that  was  the  bottom  line  that  we  had  to  pro- 
vide. And  that  includes  those  of  us  who  do  not  support  the  idea  of, 
quote/unquote,  "full  reimbursement  for  State  and  local  cash  and 
medical  assistance  to  legalized  aliens,"  despite  the  fact  that  certain 
communities  and  jurisdictions  in  my  area  are  shouting  for  it.  I 
think  you  could  make  a  legitimate  argument  that  it  is  extremely 
difficult  to  ever  determine,  frankly,  what  is  the  net  cost  to  a  local 
jurisdiction.  Because  many  of  these  people  who  are  already  here, 
and  have  been  for  many  years,  do  work,  do  contribute,  and  do  pay 
taxes. 

But  I  do  think  the  bare  minimum  that  would  be  required  for 
many  of  us  would  be  the  initial  exemptions  we  have,  that  is,  the 
Cuban-Haitian  entrants — because  that  was  a  specific  program — and 
the  program  of  assistance  for  the  aged,  blindness,  and  disability, 
and  also  because  of  public  health,  for  serious  illness  and  injury. 

We  tried  to  construct  that  as  carefully  as  possible  and  as  limiting 
as  possible  to  take  care  of  the  true  needs  and  the  extraordinary 
needs  that  would  impact  on  a  community.  And  many  of  us  were 
very  much  willing  not  to  go  with  the  full  reimbursement  but  in 
lieu  of  that  have  the  block  grant  approach.  Perhaps  that  sort  of 
combination,  that  exemption  for  those  extreme  examples,  and  then 
the  block  grant  might  be  a  compromise. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you. 

The  gentleman  from  Texas. 

Mr.  Hall.  I  have  no  further  questions. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Mr.  Attorney  General,  one  last  question.  I  read  in 
the  morning  paper  that  concerns  have  been  raised  about  the  poten- 
tial for  local  law  enforcement  of  immigration  laws. 

First  of  all,  I'd  like  you,  if  you  could,  through  your  Immigration 
Service,  to  send  us  a  copy  of  the  material  when  it  becomes  effective 
this  week.  It  is  my  position  that  State  as  well  as  local  enforcement 
of  the  Nation's  immigration  laws  is  not  contemplated;  that  should 
be  the  responsibility  of  Federal  officials.  I  wonder  if  there  is  any 
clarification  needed  today,  or  perhaps  you  could  send  us  some  in- 
formation. 

Attorney  General  Smith.  Well,  the  thrust  of  that,  Mr.  Chairman, 
is  that  in  various  areas  of  law  enforcement  we  are  emphasizing  co- 
operation and  coordination  with  State  and  local  law  enforcement 
authorities.  That  certainly  is  true  in  the  drug  area.  It  only  makes 
sense,  since  the  INS  is  engaged  in  law  enforcement,  for  the  INS  to 
do  the  same  thing  we  are  doing  in  other  areas  of  law  enforcement, 
which  is  to  cooperate.  This  does  not  mean  we  are  going  to  deputize 
State  and  local  law  enforcement  people  to  become  INS  agents. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  You  are  not  delegating  your  responsibilities  to 
them. 


167 

Attorney  General  Smith.  No,  but  there  is  no  reason  why  in  this 
lav/  enforcement  effort  we  shouldn't  cooperate  with  State  and  local 
people,  the  same  way  we  do  in  every  other  area  of  law  enforce- 
ment. That  is  particularly  so  since  we  are  now  emphasizing  that. 

You  are  probably  familiar  with  our  law  enforcement  coordinat- 
ing committees  where  each  of  our  U.S.  attorneys  is  making  a  con- 
centrated effort  to  work  with  his  State  and  local  counterparts  to 
pool  resources  and  develop  local  priorities.  And  it  just  doesn't  make 
sense  in  the  law  enforcement  area  involving  INS  to  treat  the  situa- 
tion any  differently.  That  is  really  the  thrust  of  that  action. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  gentleman  from  California. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  could  just  comment  on  that. 
Just  a  cautionary  comment.  I  know  in  our  area  of  the  country 
many  of  the  local  jurisdictions  of  law  enforcement  were  very  con- 
cerned about  the  fear  that  people  in  the  illegal  community  or  undo- 
cumented community  had  ^jout  approaching  local  law  enforce- 
ment with  complaints  of  victimization.  That  is,  they  were  afraid  to 
come  forward  to  point  out  people  had  taken  advantage  of  them  in  a 
criminal  sense  because  they  were  afraid  they  would  then  be  re- 
vealed as  being  here  illegally.  .  , 

And  I  think  we  do  have  to  be  concerned  about  that.  I  thmk  it  s 
slightly  different  than  other  law  enforcement  mechanisms.  We  all 
recognize,  and  you  said  it  here  before,  the  victimization  of  those 
people  who  have  been  here  for  many  years  but  here  on  an  illegal 
status.  I  hope  we  are  not  moving  in  a  direction  which  will  make  it 
more  difficult  for  them  to  go  openly  to  local  law  enforcement  and 
complain  about  drug  problems  or  complain  about  organized  crime 
activities  in  their  area  by  virtue  of  the  fact  chat  they  would  fear  to 
be  identified  as  being  here  illegally,  and  instead  of  getting  help 
from  local  jurisdictions  be  on  the  way  back  to  Mexico  or  Honduras 
or  Canada  or  wherever. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  thank  the  gentleman  for  his  comments. 

The  Attorney  General  is  excused,  and  thank  you  very  much  for 
your  helpfulness. 

Attorney  General  Smith.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Our  friend  from  New  Mexico,  Congressman  Lujan. 

Let  me  welcome  our  friend.  You  have  been  very  patient  today. 
As  you  have  heard,  there  are  10  easy  answers. 

Without  objection,  your  statement  will  be  made  a  part  of  the 
record. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HON.  MANUEL  LUJAN,  JR.,  REPRESENTATIVE 
FROM  THE  FIRST  DISTP'CT  OF  NEW  MEXICO 

Mr.  LuJAN.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Before  proceeding  with  my  statement,  I  suppose  I  am  here  this 
morning  partly  because  during  the  discussion  and  the  votes  taken 
during  the  lame  duck  session  on  the  immigration  bill,  I  carne  out 
in  opposition  to  it  and,  of  course,  at  that  time  I  was  told,  "Now, 
where  were  you?  We  didn't  know  that  you  guys  were  out  there  in 
opposition  to  it."  So  in  self-defense  I  thought  I'd  better  come  up 
early  and  we'd  discuss  it. 

Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  no  question  that  our  immigration  laws 
and  procedures  need  some  revision  and  guidelines  that  are  fair  and 


168 

equal  to  all  who  wish  to  join  the  American  experiment.  However, 
there  are  some  provisions  within  this  bill  that  disturb  me,  and  I 
would  like  to  address  these  problem  areas. 

One  aspect  of  this  bill,  I  believe,  is  insulting  to  each  and  every 
citizen  of  this  land  of  free  people— a  national  identity  card.  And 
you  will  argue  with  me  that  you  do  not  have  an  national  identity 
card  provision  in  the  bill,  but  there  is  a  provision  where  I  must 
show  documentation  of  being  legalized  as  a  citizen  before  I  can  be 

employed. 

For  as  long  as  I  have  been  politically  aware,  I  have  heard  office- 
holders and  candidates  for  office  brag  about  how  the  United  States 
of  America  is  a  free  country,  where  the  citizens  are  not  required  to 
show  documents  to  Government  authorities.  In  every  speech  we 
have  also  compared  this  fact  to  Communist  countries  that  do  re- 
quire all  of  their  citizens  to  be  documented. 

I,  personally,  and  many  thousands  of  my  neighbors  and  relatives 
in  the  Southwestern  part  of  the  United  States  are  unique  to  immi- 
gration policy.  Many  of  our  ancestors  were  living  here  about  200 
years  before  the  Pilgrams  found  their  way  to  Plymouth  Rock.  Nev- 
ertheless, this  is  a  Nation  of  immigrants.  More  than  any  other 
country,  our  strength  comes  from  our  own  immigrant  heritage  and 
our  capacity  to  welcome  those  from  other  lands.  Our  philosophy 
cannot  allow  us  to  greet  them  with  an  identity  card,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. 

As  I  look  at  the  names  of  the  subcommittee  members— Mazzoli, 
Lungren,  Frank,  McCollum,  Hall,  and  the  witness,  Lujan— it  is  ap- 
parent that  no  nationality  has  a  claim  of  dominance  over  any 
other.  Yet,  if  we  begin  issuing  national  identity  cards,  it  will  imply 
a  class  of  citizenship.  In  this  country  we  do  not  have  classes  of  citi- 
zenship. The  bottom  line,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  that  required  documen- 
tation is  abhorrent  to  our  nature  as  a  free  people. 

Another  point  of  objection  in  this  bill  is  wiping  away  the  respon- 
sibility of  those  persons  who  entered  this  country  illegally.  What 
we  would  be  doing  is  to  reward  those  people  who  broke  our  law  and 
punish  the  thousands  of  people  waiting  patiently  to  enter  this 
country  in  a  legal  manner.  Somehow,  to  my  sense  of  justice,  that 
just  doesn't  make  sense. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  feel  that  we  have  to  look  at  the  whole  picture 
before  we  make  such  stopgap  changes  in  the  entire  legal  code.  This 
is  not  a  perfect  world.  There  are  oppressive  governments  that  en- 
slave their  citizens.  This  country  has  always  stood  as  a  beacon  of 
individual  liberty  and  justice.  But  commonsense  tells  us  that  we 
cannot  support  the  population  of  the  entire  planet  within  our  bor- 
ders, because  the  rest  of  the  world  does  not  promote  our  ideals  and 
principles.  We  are  not  the  only  free  country  on  Earth.  The  respon- 
sibility for  human  care  and  concern  must  be  shared.  But  the  great- 
est concern  that  this  Nation  can  show  to  oppressed  peoples  is  to 
export  our  ideals  as  we  have  had  a  tradition  of  doing.  We  must 
stand  up  and  fight  tyranny  where  it  exists.  If  our  only  policy  to 
oppose  tyranny  is  to  enlarge  our  population  with  refugees,  we  will 
eventually  sink  our  own  ship  or  State  and  lose  the  battle  for  indi- 
vidual liberty  entirely. 

There  are  some  countries  with  whom  we  have  a  special  relation- 
ship. Mexico  and  Canada,  as  historical  friends  and  neighbors,  are 


169 

among  them.  With  these  nations  our  immigration  policy  should  re- 
flect this  relationship. 

Two  years  ago,  testifying  before  this  subcommittee,  the  Attorney 
General  of  the  United  States  said  that  "We  have  lost  control  of  our 
borders."  He  said  that  we  have  pursued  unrealistic  policies  and 
failed  to  enforce  our  laws  effectively.  He  said  that  we  must  face  re- 
ality and  more  effectively  enforce  our  laws.  It  seems  to  me  that 
this  approach  makes  sense.  We  must  enforce  our  existing  laws, 
rather  than  give  up,  say  it  doesn't  work,  and  write  new  laws.  And 
if  the  new  laws  call  for  national  identity  cards  and  blanket  amnes- 
ty for  those  who  broke  the  law,  then  we  have  not  improved  the  law 
but  harmed  it. 

Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

[The  complete  statement  follows:] 

Statement  of  Hon.  Manuel  Lujan,  Jr. 

Mr.  Chairman,  thank  you  for  the  opportunity  to  testify  before  this  Subcommittee 
on  the  Immigration  Reform  and  Control  Act  of  1983.  There  is  no  question  that  our 
Immigration  laws  and  procedures  need  some  revision  and  guidelines  that  are  fair 
and  equal  to  all  who  wish  to  join  the  American  experiment.  However,  there  are 
some  provisions  within  this  bill  that  disturb  me  and  I  would  like  to  address  these 

problem  areas.  .  ^   ,  .    ,     j    c  c 

One  aspect  of  this  bill  is  insulting  to  each  and  every  citizen  of  this  land  ot  tree 
people.  A  National  Identity  Card.  For  as  long  as  I  have  been  politically  aware,  I 
have  heard  office  holders  and  candidates  for  office  brag  about  how  the  United 
States  of  America  is  a  free  country  where  the  citizens  are  not  required  to  show  doc- 
uments to  government  authorities.  In  every  speech  we  have  also  compared  this  fact 
to  communist  countries  that  do  require  all  of  their  citizens  to  be  documented. 

I  personally,  and  many  thousands  of  my  neighbors  and  relatives  in  the  Southwest- 
ern United  States  are  unique  to  immigration  policies.  Many  of  our  ancestors  were 
living  here  for  about  200  years  before  the  Pilgrims  found  their  way  to  Plymouth 
Rock.  Nevertheless,  this  is  a  nation  of  Immigrants.  More  than  any  other  country, 
our  strength  comes  from  our  own  immigrant  heritage  and  our  capacity  to  welcome 
those  from  other  lands.  Our  philosophy  cannot  allow  us  to  greet  them  with  an  iden- 
tity card.  As  I  look  at  this  Subcommittee  with  names  like— Mazzoli,  Lungren, 
Frank,  McCollum,  and  the  witness,  Lujan— it  is  apparent  that  no  nationality  has  a 
claim  of  dominance  over  any  other.  Yet  if  we  begin  issuing  national  identity  cards, 
it  will  imply  a  class  of  citizenship.  In  this  country  we  do  not  have  classes  of  citizen- 
ship. The  bottom  line,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  that  required  documentation  is  abhorrent 
to  our  nature  as  a  free  people. 

Another  point  of  objection  in  this  bill  is  wiping  away  the  responsibility  ot  those 
persons  who  entered  this  country  illegally.  What  we  would  be  doing  is  to  reward 
those  people  who  broke  our  law,  and  punish  the  thousands  of  people  waiting  pa- 
tiently to  enter  this  country  in  the  legal  manner.  Somehow,  to  my  sense  of  justice, 
that  just  doesn't  make  sense. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  feel  that  we  have  to  look  at  the  whole  picture  before  we  make 
such  stopgap  changes  in  the  entire  legal  code.  This  is  not  a  perfect  world.  There  are 
oppressive  governments  that  enslave  their  citizens.  This  country  has  always  stood  as 
a  beacon  of  individual  liberty  and  justice.  But  commonsense  tells  us  that  we  cannot 
support  the  population  of  the  entire  planet,  within  our  borders,  because  the  rest  of 
the  world  does  not  promote  our  ideals  and  principles.  We  are  not  the  only  free  coun- 
try on  Earth.  The  responsibility  for  human  care  and  concern  must  be  shared.  But 
the  greatest  concern  that  this  nation  can  show  to  oppressed  peoples  is  to  export  our 
ideals  as  we  have  had  a  tradition  of  doing.  We  must  stand  up  and  fight  tyranny 
where  it  exists.  If  our  only  policy  to  oppose  tyranny  is  to  enlarge  our  population 
with  refugees,  we  will  eventually  sink  our  own  ship  of  state  and  lose  the  battle  for 
individual  liberty  entirely.  ,•      »»     •  j 

There  are  some  countries  with  whom  we  have  a  special  relationship.  Mexico  and 
Canada,  as  historical  friends  and  neighbors  are  among  them.  With  these  nations  our 
immigration  policy  should  reflect  this  relationship. 

Two  years  ago,  testifying  before  this  subcommittee,  the  attorney  general  ot  the 
United  States  said  that  "we  have  lost  control  of  our  borders".  He  said  that  we  have 
pursued  unrealistic  policies  and  failed  to  enforce  our  laws  effectively.  He  said  that 


1  o    ccc      r\  __QQ_ 


170 

we  must  face  reality  and  more  effectively  enforce  our  laws.  It  seems  to  me  that  this 
approach  flakes  sense.  We  must  enforce  our  existing  laws,  rather  than  give  up,  say 
it  doesn't  work  and  write  new  laws.  And  if  the  new  laws  call  for  national  identity 
cards  and  blanket  amnesty  for  those  who  broke  the  law,  then  we  have  not  improved 
the  law,  but  harmed  it. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  thank  you  very  much,  Manuel. 

You  talk  about  the  national  identity  card,  and  you  say  required 
documentation  is  abhorrent  to  us,  to  our  country,  and  our  philos- 
ophy. Do  you  equate  the  responsibility  to  provide  documentation  to 
get  a  job  with  this  national  identity  card?  Do  you  consider  them 
exactly  the  same  thing? 

Mr.  LuJAN.  I  think  so.  I  didn't  even  have  to  produce — I  guess  I 
did;  I  was  going  to  say  for  the  job  that  I  now  have — proof  of  citizen- 
ship. I  did  have  to  do  that  for  this  particular  job.  But  for  no  other 
do  you  have  to  do  that. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  When  you  go  back  home  and  you  buy  something  at 
the  store,  and  in  this  credit  card  society  you  show  a  credit  card  and 
they  say,  "That's  not  enough." 

I  got  hassled  the  other  day  at  one  of  the  stores  here  in  town  be- 
cause I  gave  my  credit  card  from  their  company,  which  they  could 
have  put  in  their  machine  and  verified  what  my  balance  was,  but 
she  asked  for  something  more.  She  asked  for  my  driver's  license, 
and  it  had  to  be  a  driver's  license  with  a  picture,  which  Kentucky 
happens  to  issue.  I  argued  with  her  for  a  few  minutes,  but  because 
I  wanted  the  goods  I  had  to  give  her  the  card. 

But  we  do  that  day  in  and  day  out  right  now.  Is  there  some  dis- 
tinction with  a  national  identity  card? 

Mr.  LuJAN.  I  think  so.  I  don't  have  to  have  a  pair  of  Levis  from 
J.  C.  Penney  so  I  don't  have  to  show  them  my  driver's  license  if  I 
am  going  to  make  a  check  or  whatever  the  case  may  be.  But  I  do 
have  to  have  a  job.  I  look  at  that  more  as  a  right  that  I  have  as  a 
citizen  of  this  country  to  have  that  job,  and  to  have  to  prove  that 
I'm  a  citizen  of  this  country  in  order  to  be  able  to  exercise  that 
right — there  is  a  difference  between  the  two,  although  I  can  under- 
stand what  you're  saying.  I'm  not  here  to  tell  you  that  it's  an  easy 
problem. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  You  started  out  by  saying  that,  and  I  appreciate  it. 
It  is  a  very  ticklish  and  nettlesome  problem,  to  say  the  least. 

What  the  subcommittee  endeavored  to  do,  which  of  course  you 
recall  from  attending  the  debates  last  year,  was  to  draft  a  bill 
which  not  only  assures  people  who  say,  "We  will  be  singled  out  for 
examination  because  we  don't  look  the  same  or  sound  the  same," 
whatever  that  all  means.  We  said,  "Therefore,  everybody  has  to  be 
asked." 

And  then  we  say,  "What  are  they  going  to  show?"  We  say,  "We 
don't  want  any  national  ID  card  which  becomes  some  kind  of  an 
internal  passport."  So  we  said,  "Let's  use  what  you  normally 
have — passport,  birth  certificate,  driver's  license,  ID  card  issued  by 
a  State,  social  security  card — things  like  that."  We  only  make  ex- 
ceptions for  older  people  and  younger  people  who  may  not  have 
these. 

So  we  tried  our  best  to  thread  our  way  through  that  minefield, 
and  obviously  we  haven't  done  so  satisfactorily,  at  least  for  now. 
But  again,  I  think  it  isn't  because  the  committee  hasn't  been  care- 


171 

fully  cognizant  of  the  pitfalls.  If  we  go  too  far  we  say,  "There  is  one 
solution  here.  Make  everybody  prove  who  they  are  and  that  will 
solve  the  problem."  So  we  try  to  keep  rein  on  that  easy-fix  solution. 

Mr.  LuJAN.  There  is  no  question  in  my  mind  that  you  have  im- 
proved it.  Even  as  I  was  listening  to  the  testimony  of  the  Attorney 
General  and  the  questioning  by  Mr.  Lungren  and  all,  there  is  no 
question  that  there  is  that  reference,  there  is  that  feeling  that  you 
are  going  to  have  to  carry  something  that  proves  you  are  a  citizen 
of  this  country.  Maybe  it's  because  it  will  happen  to  some  of  us 
more  often  than  it  will  to  others. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  understand  that,  and  I  thank  you. 

We  certainly  had  some  very  poignant  testimony  over  the  last 
couple  of  years  from  people  who  have  personal  experiences  in  being 
singled  out,  so  we  don't  want  to  add  to  the  ordeal. 

The  gentleman  from  California. 

Mr.  Lungren.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Thank  you  for  appearing,  Manuel. 

Let  me  just  ask  you:  Do  you  think  it's  more  of  a  restriction  on 
one's  right  to  privacy  and  one's  right  as  a  citizen,  or  as  a  nonciti- 
zen  legally  allowed  to  live  in  the  United  States,  that  you  be  re- 
quired to  have  on  your  person  a  driver's  license.  Is  that  less  or 
more  restrictive  in  terms  of  right  to  privacy  than  a  system  where 
you  are  required  to  produce  identification  only  at  the  point  in  time 
at  which  you  apply  for  a  job? 

Mr.  LuJAN.  It  is  not  as  onerous  to  be  required  to  have  a  driver's 
license,  it  seems  to  me.  I  am  required  to  have  a  lot  of  different 
things — a  particular  piece  of  paper  that  I  indeed  do  own  this  piece 
of  property  or  this  house  or  building  or  whatever  I  might  have. 

There  are  a  lot  of  things  that  have  nothing  to  do  with  proving 
citizenship,  only  that  you  have  complied  with  all  the  rules  and  reg- 
ulations and  taken  the  training  so  that  you  are  capable  of  operat- 
ing that  motor  vehicle. 

I  look  at  that  as  a  little  different  situation. 

Mr.  Lungren.  I  understand.  But  most  States  have  an  affirmative 
obligation  that  you  have  that  on  your  person.  If  you  are  driving 
down  the  road  perfectly  legally,  not  drunk,  not  doing  anything 
wrong  in  terms  of  your  driving,  but  by  some  happenstance  an  offi- 
cer—he can't  legally  stop  you  but  if  he  happens  to  engage  you  as 
you  stop  your  car — stops  you  and  you  don't  have  that  driver's  li- 
cense on  your  person,  you  can  be  hauled  into  jail  for  refusing  to 
have  that  license,  even  if  you  were  not  doing  anything  illegally. 

I  understand  what  you're  saying  about  a  national  ID  card,  but 
this  in  no  way  is  a  national  ID  card.  You  present  it  one  time. 

Mr.  LuJAN.  It  would  have  to  be  more  than  a  driver's  license. 

Mr.  Lungren.  What  about  a  social  security  card? 

Mr.  LuJAN.  I  envision  it  as  being  something  more  than  a  social 
security  card.  If  I  want  to  get  a  job  right  now,  I  have  to  show  that 
or  at  least  give  my  number. 

Mr.  Lungren.  What  if  we  moved  in  the  direction  of  enhancing 
the  counterfeit-proof  social  security  card,  and  at  the  time  you  apply 
for  your  social  security  card  they  do  a  little  bit  better  check  than 
they  do  now.  Now  they  ask  you  a  question  whether  you're  here  le- 
gally— not  whether  you're  a  citizen  but  whether  you  are  a  citizen 
or  here  legally. 


172 

Would  that  have  the  same  onus  that  you  see  with  a,  quote/un- 
quote, national  identification  card? 

Mr.  LuJAN.  No,  if  that  is  the  direction  that  it  takes.  But  first  of 
all,  I  think  the  fallacy  is  you  are  not  going  to  move  in  the  direction 
of  anything  that  cannot  be  counterfeited. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  I  said  "less  counterfeit."  Obviously  there  is  noth- 
ing perfect. 

Mr.  LuJAN.  Yes,  and  Social  Security  could  make  a  better  check 
of  your  credentials,  so  to  speak.  Certainly  that  is  a  lot  less  onerous 
than  requiring  me  to  carry  my  birth  certificate  or  whatever. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  Interestingly  enough,  I  think  the  reason  why  we 
have  those  two  or  three  documents  that  you  have  to  have  is  be- 
cause we  couldn't  get  agreement  on  a  social  security  card  or  any 
card.  And  many  people  thought  this  was  a  sort  of  half-step  toward 
moving  to  an  enhanced  social  security  card. 

Mr.  LuJAN.  As  I  said  to  the  chairman,  I  think  you  moved  in  a 
good  direction.  Good  effort  is  being  made. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  You  have  often  talked  about  how  we  can't  have 
all  the  whole  world  in  the  United  States  or  half  the  world  in  the 
United  States.  Can  you  give  us  an  idea  of  what  mechanism  you 
think  we  ought  to  move  toward  if  we  are  going  to  do  something 
about  demagnetizing  immigration? 

Mr.  LuJAN.  Oh,  I  could  give  you  my  whole  theory  on  how  we  are 
going  to  make  this  whole  thing  work.  How  practical  it  is  I  don't 
know.  If  you  want  to  go  along  those  lines,  you  have  to  start  by 
stronger  enforcement,  first  of  all.  You've  got  to  be  able  to  stop 
people  from  just  being  able  to  walk  in. 

Beyond  that — and  if  it  were  mine  to  do,  I  would  make,  for  exam- 
ple, the  entire  Western  Hemisphere  almost  as  we  do  in  the  United 
States,  that  you  could  go  from  country  to  country  and  work,  trade, 
or  whatever.  I  would  like  to  get  it  to  that  point.  I  don't  think  that 
is  practical. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  Open  border? 

Mr.  LujAN.  Just  about,  yes. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  I  remember  when  Mario  Obledo,  who  was  then 
the  Secretary  of  Health  and  Welfare  for  California,  appeared 
before  the  Presidential  Commission  hearing  in  San  Francisco  just 
prior  to  my  testimony,  and  he  said  we  needed  to  have  an  open 
border  between  the  United  States  and  Mexico,  at  which  point 
someone  said  to  him,  "The  problem  now  is  Mexico  doesn't  have  a 
very  secure  border  on  its  southern  flank." 

And  he  said,  "Well,  we'd  have  to  secure  that  border." 

Mr.  LuJAN.  I'm  talking  about  the  entire  Western  Hemisphere, 
all  the  way  from  Canada  down  to  the  tip  of  South  America. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  How  many  wouldn't  come  here? 

Mr.  LuJAN.  Well,  there  would  be  a  limit.  Also,  that  would  give 
people  an  opportunity  to  increase  the  employment  opportunities  in 
some  of  those  other  countries  also.  They  would  probably  object  to  it 
more  than  we  would,  the  other  countries. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  We  could  go  on  and  on,  but  would  you  go  from  El 
Salvador  to  Nicaragua  or  Costa  Rica  or  Mexico,  or  would  you  go 
from  El  Salvador  to  the  United  States? 

Mr.  LujAN.  Or  Argentina  or  Brazil. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  Well,  I'm  not  sure 


173 

Mr.  LujAN.  Well,  it's  like  many  people  come  to  California  for  em- 
ployment. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  More  are  coming  all  the  time.  We  prayed  for  rain 
on  New  Year's  Day  so  those  new  Westerners  might  see  some  rain 
during  the  Rose  Bowl. 

Mr.  LujAN.  We  call  them  Easterners  no  matter  where  they're 

from. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  gentleman's  time  has  expired. 

The  gentleman  from  Texas. 

Mr.  Hall.  I  agree  with  what  the  gentleman  from  New  Mexico 
says  with  reference  to  the  ID  card,  but  I  have  some  problem  follow- 
ing what  he  says  about  having  an  open  border  between  this  coun- 
try and  those  countries  south,  because  I  think  if  you  had  that  we 
would  have  an  unholy  mess  on  our  hands,  more  than  we  have  now. 

Mr.  LuJAN.  We're  talking  about  an  idea.  Mr.  Lungren  asked  me 
how  I  would  solve  the  problem,  and  that  is  the  ideal  way  to  solve 
it,  to  make  everybody  rich  and  prosperous,  and  then  open  your  bor- 
ders and  then  nobody  would  go. 

Mr.  Hall.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  thank  the  gentleman. 

May  I  ask  you — maybe  not  now,  Manuel — but  one  of  the  prob- 
lems we  faced  last  year  in  trying  to  talk  to  the  Hispanic  caucus,  at 
least  before,  was  what  you  guys  argued  was  the  sending  nations 
problem:  "You  are  never  going  to  solve  this  problem  until  you  take 
care  of  the  sending  nations." 

The  truth  of  the  matter  is,  the  sending  nations  or,  as  you  say,  all 
the  way  from  Canada  down  to  the  tip  of  South  America— we  could 
probably  never,  if  we  spent  the  rest  of  our  lives  devoted  to  it,  solve 
the  problems  of  sending  nations.  But  if  you  have  some  thoughts  on 
what  are  feasible  programs,  things  you  may  have  come  in  contact 
with  in  your  travels  as  a  man  whose  own  heritage  is  in  this  area, 
we  would  be  very  interested  to  hear  them. 

The  gentleman  from  California  has  been  very  innovative  and  his 
approach  is  to  setting  up  bilateral  activities  between  Mexico  and 
the  United  States.  But  even  that  wasn't  sufficient  to  satisfy  some  of 
the  concerns  of  our  friends  in  the  Congress. 

So  anything  you  can  give  us  on  that  point  of  how  we  help  send- 
ing nations,  not  just  Mexico— but  of  course  that  is  one  of  the  major 
areas  in  which  people  find  their  best  interests  lie  in  leaving  the 
country— we'd  appreciate  it.  And  we  thank  you  very  much  for  your 
testimony. 

Mr.  LujAN.  Could  I  just  apologize  for  appearing  to  sound  so  nega- 
tive. 

Mr.  Mazzoll  No.  Everybody  else  does.  You  don't  want  to  sepa- 
rate yourself  from  the  herd,  do  you?  You  don't  want  to  have  that 
kind  of  a  complex.  The  world  is  crazy  enough. 

Mr.  LuJAN.  Maybe  it's  a  frustration.  I  don't  have  any  real  final 
solution  as  to  how  we  solve  the  problem.  But  I  see  us  moving  in  a 
direction  like,  "We  are  going  to  have  this  bill.  Therefore,  once  we 
pass  the  bill,  we  will  declare  the  problem  solved.  And  in  5  years  we 
are  going  to  have  the  same  thing." 

Mr.  Mazzou.  We  pursue  the  George  Aiken  impulse  around  here. 
We  declare  things  better  and  that's  the  solution.  So  in  matters  of 
last  resort,  always  look  to  George  Aiken. 


174 

Mr.  LuJAN.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  committee  stands  adjourned. 

[Whereupon,  at  12:48  p.m.,  the  hearing  was  adjourned.] 


IMMIGRATION  REFORM  AND  CONTROL  ACT  OF 

1983 


WEDNESDAY,  MARCH  2,  1983 

House  of  Representatives, 
Subcommittee  on  Immigration, 
Refugees,  and  International  Law, 

Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 

Washington,  D.C. 

The  subcommittee  met  at  9:10  a.m.  in  room  B-352  of  the  Ray- 
burn  House  Office  Building,  Hon.  Romano  L.  MazzoH  (chairman  of 
the  subcommittee)  presiding. 

Present:  Representatives  MazzoU,  Lungren,  McCoUum,  Fish, 
Hall,  and  Smith. 

Staff  present:  Arthur  P.  Endres,  Jr.,  counsel;  and  Peter  J.  Levin- 
son,  associate  counsel. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  subcommittee  will  come  to  order. 

This  is  the  second  day  of  our  planned  series  of  hearings  on  the 
Immigration  Reform  and  Control  Act,  H.R.  1510. 

Today  we  have  as  our  leadoff  witness  our  esteemed  colleague 
from  the  Judiciary  Committee  and  my  personal  good  friend.  Bill 
Hughes,  from  the  State  of  New  Jersey. 

Bill,  your  statement,  without  objection,  will  be  made  a  part  of 
the  record,  and  you  may  read  it  and  proceed  as  you  wish.  Thank 
you  for  taking  the  time  to  join  us. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HON.  WILLIAM  J.  HUGHES,  REPRESENTATIVE 
FROM  THE  SECOND  DISTRICT  OF  THE  STATE  OF  NEW  JERSEY 

Mr.  Hughes.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  I  am  going  to  spare 
you  my  reading  the  statement. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Those  golden,  dulcet  tones. 

Mr.  Hughes.  Let  me  say  that  I  really  have  enjoyed  working  with 
you  since  first  coming  to  Congress.  I  don't  think  anybody  has 
worked  any  harder  on  legislation  than  you  did  on  the  immigration 
bill  and  seen  it  torpedoed  in  the  closing  days  of  the  session.  I  know 
that  had  to  be  quite  frustrating  and  painful.  But  I  want  to  com- 
mend you:  I  think  that  throughout  that  period  you  probably  main- 
tained your  cool  more  than  most  Members  of  the  Congress  could 
have  under  the  circumstances. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you  very  much.  Bill.  Actually  I  had  a  lot  of 
help  from  a  lot  of  people.  The  subcommittee  itself  is  extraordinary 
and  did  yeoman  work.  You  contributed  greatly  because  at  the  full 
committee  markup  we  had  a  very  interesting  and  I  think  a  very 
informative  session.  Of  course,  anything  that  bids  to  change,  for 

(175) 


176 

the  first  time  in  30  years  in  a  fundamental  way,  the  immigration 
laws  of  this  land  could  not  be  expected  to  be  done  very  hurriedly. 
But  I  thank  you  for  those  observations. 

Mr.  Hughes.  Well,  Mr.  Chairman,  you  and  the  committee 
worked  very,  very  hard,  the  staff  did  excellent  work,  and  I  com- 
mend you.  I  don't  envy  you  the  task  you  have  ahead,  because  there 
obviously  is  no  clear  consensus.  I  wish  you  well  in  trying  to  develop 
a  consensus  on  what  is  probably  one  of  the  single  most  important 
issues  facing  this  Congress — immigration  and  naturalization 
reform. 

I  only  have  one  point,  and  it's  a  point  I'm  sure  some  Members 
were  already  tired  of  hearing  when  it  came  to  the  full  committee, 
prior  to  the  time  it  came  to  the  floor;  and  at  the  time  it  was  on  the 
floor;  and  that  is,  I  don't  think  I  could  support  legalization  unless  I 
saw  a  bona  fide  effort  on  the  part  of  this  administration  and  the 
Congress  to  put  in  place  the  enforcement  mechanisms  that  insure 
that  we  won't  be  doing  the  same  thing  in  legalization  5  or  10  years 
down  the  pike. 

That  is  what  the  Select  Committee  recommended,  and  I  think 
they  are  right  on  target. 

I  realize  that  will  not  get  on  board  all  the  various  groups  who 
have  all  kinds  of  reasons  why  they  didn't  support  the  legislation  in 
the  last  Congress,  even  when  they  recognized  that  there  was  no 
ideal  world  and  that  we  had  to  make  a  lot  of  painful  decisions. 

But  it  seems  to  me  that  some  legalization  process  has  to  be  part 
of  any  comprehensive  bill. 

I  think  first  and  foremost  we  have  to  make  a  commitment  to  seal 
our  borders  and  do  a  better  job  of  bringing  the  Immigration  Service 
into  the  20th  century.  We  are  developing  that  capability  and  we 
have  seen  some  progress  in  trying  to  beef  up  the  enforcement 
mechanisms.  But,  Rom,  it  is  minuscule  compared  to  the  need. 

It's  similar  to  my  own  Crime  Subcommittee:  The  administration 
came  in  with  additional  slots  for  law  enforcement  agencies — FBI, 
Drug  Enforcement  Administration,  BATF,  the  Coast  Guard — but 
we  are  operating  in  the  margin  and  we  can't  get  a  handle  on  the 
problems  unless  we  make  major  commitments. 

I'm  talking  about  resources  to  provide  the  computer  capability. 
We  can  provide  the  tools  in  endeavoring  through  identification  to 
identify  those  who  are  here  as  visitors,  in  order  to  do  a  better  job  of 
tracking  them  while  they  are  here.  We  can  do  a  better  job  on  the 
border.  But  we  can't  do  it  unless  the  administration  and  the  Con- 
gress are  prepared  to  fund  it  realistically.  And  I  can  tell  you  I  will 
have  a  hard  time  supporting  any  form  of  amnesty  or  legalization 
until  that  mechanism  is  in  place. 

I  support  the  work  sanctions,  but  again,  that's  easy  for  me  to 
support.  But  that  in  itself  is  not  sufficient  without  doing  a  better 
job  at  the  borders,  without  doing  a  better  job  of  tracking  while  in 
this  country,  without  making  the  commitments  that  we  have  to 
make. 

That's  the  only  point  that  I  made  in  my  statement,  and  I  look 
forward  to  working  with  you  in  implementing  that  policy  which  I 
think  is  essential. 

[The  complete  statement  follows:] 


177 

Statement  of  Hon.  William  J.  Hughes  on  the  Immigration  Reform  and  Control 

Act  of  1983 

Mr.  Chairman:  I  want  to  thank  you  and  the  members  of  the  Subcommittee  on  Im- 
migration, Refugees,  and  International  Law  for  inviting  me  to  submit  comments  on 
the  "Immigration  Reform  and  Control  Act  of  1983,"  which  will  make  fundamental 
changes  and  improvements  to  our  immigration  laws.  I  would  also  like  to  take  this 
opportunity  to  comment  on  the  fine  work  which  you  and  the  other  concerned  mem- 
bers of  the  subcommittee  did  in  the  97th  Congress  in  developing  this  important  leg- 
islative proposal.  I  regret  that,  despite  your  tremendous  effort  to  move  the  immigra- 
tion reform  bill  prior  to  adjournment  in  the  last  session,  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives was  unable  to  give  the  legislation  the  important  attention  which  it  most  cer- 
tainly deserved.  .,,    ,  ^ 

As  you  are  well  aware,  we  are  engaged  in  a  great  debate  which  will  determine 
U.S.  immigration  policy  for  many  years  to  come,  perhaps  well  into  the  next  century. 
The  immigration  reform  legislation  which  the  subcommittee  is  considering  will  di- 
rectly affect  millions  of  individuals  who  look  toward  this  country  as  a  source  of 
hope,  a  place  in  which  they  can  build  a  new  life. 

As  all  of  us  know,  immigration  reform  is  long  overdue.  But  as  the  intensity  of  the 
current  debate  on  the  subject  and  the  large  number  of  amendments  which  were  pro- 
posed when  the  bill  came  to  the  House  floor  last  year  clearly  indicate.  There  is  no 
clear  consensus  on  how  to  best  go  about  the  task  of  controlling  immigration,  secur- 
ing our  borders,  and  dealing  with  the  large  number  of  illegal  aliens  already  in  this 

country.  •      ,      i        /~i 

As  a  member  of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  I  had  the  opportunity  in  the  last  Con- 
gress to  participate  in  the  heated  debate  surrounding  immigration  reform  legisla- 
tion. Mr.  Chairman,  you  have  been  one  of  the  first  to  admit  that  this  is  not  a  perfect 
bill,  resolving  everyone's  concern.  Yet  the  immigration  reform  proposal  is,  neverthe- 
less, an  effective  compromise,  representing  many  hours  of  work  on  the  part  of  the 
distinguished  chairman,  members,  and  staff  of  the  Immigration  Subcommittee  as 
well  as  others  who  have  made  a  commitment  to  updating  our  immigration  laws. 

Despite  my  general  support  for  the  thrust  and  intent  of  the  legislation,  I  have 
some  concern  with  regard  to  the  amnesty  provisions  in  the  bill.  As  I  indicated 
during  Judiciary  Committee  markup  on  the  immigration  reform  bill  last  year,  I 
strongly  believe  that  legalization  without  increased  immigration  enforcement  and 
border  control  activity  will  only  encourage  thousands  of  new  immigrants  to  come 
into  this  country  illegally,  and  will  require  another  amnesty  program  in  the  near 

future.  •     J  i.u 

The  Select  Commission  on  Immigration  and  Refugee  Policy  clearly  recognized  the 
need  for  stronger  border  enforcement  mechamisms  in  their  report  entitled,  'U.S. 
Immigration  Policy  and  the  National  Interest."  The  1981  report  specifically  recom- 
mended that  legalization  not  proceed  until  appropriate  enforcement  mechanisms 
have  been  instituted.  The  Commission  similarly  recommended  that  border  partrol 
funding  levels  be  raised  to  provide  for  a  substantial  increase  in  the  numbers  and 
training  of  enforcement  personnel.  Unfortunately,  the  current  administration  has 
been  unwilling  to  provide  for  a  sufficient  increase  in  the  numbers  of  border  patrol, 
investigations,  inspections,  and  anti-smuggling  personnel  to  assure  that  the  num- 
bers of  aliens  entering  the  country  will  be  significantly  reduced. 

The  United  States  desperately  needs  a  workable  solution  to  the  immigration  prob- 
lems facing  us  today.  The  implementation  of  an  effective  employer-sanctions  pro- 
gram and  the  legalization  of  many  of  those  who  have  resided  in  this  country  before 
1980  are  only  part  of  the  solution.  To  assure  that  illegal  immigration  does  not  mush- 
room into  an  uncontrollable  situation,  however,  we  must  also  make  the  commitment 
to  give  the  INS  the  resources  it  needs  to  patrol  our  borders  and  enforce  the  immi- 
gration laws.  Without  this  final  element,  legalization  and  employer  sanctions  out- 
lined in  this  legislation  will  be  meaningless. 

I  firmly  believe  that  the  far-reaching  immigration  problems  facing  this  country 
must  be  resolved  in  a  timely  and  comprehensive  manner.  A  worldwide  recession, 
coupled  with  increased  opportunities  to  move  across  borders,  has  created  over- 
whelming immigration  pressures.  Border  agents  are  virtually  overrun,  and  immi- 
gration inspectors  cannot  control  tourists  and  visitors  who  enter  the  United  States 
as  "nonimmigrants"  and  then  remain.  Overworked  and  undersupported  INS  investi- 
gators cannot  curtail  the  booming  business  in  alien-smuggling,  false  documents, 
marriage  frauds,  and  the  placement  of  undocumented  aliens  in  U.S.  jobs. 

As  the  Judiciary  Committee  considers  this  important  legislation  further,  I  look 
forward  to  working  with  you  and  the  other  distinguished  members  of  the  committee 
to  insure  that  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service  receives  the  resources  it 


178 

needs  to  control  illegal  immigration  and  keep  track  of  aliens  already  in  this  coun- 
try. I  hope  that  you  will  join  with  me  to  help  implement  the  Select  Commission's 
recommendations,  and  provide  the  resources  needed  to  secure  our  borders  and  our 
law  enforcement  resources  up  to  the  level  needed  to  control  illegal  immigration. 
Unless  we  can  do  that,  Congress  may  again  be  faced  with  the  need  to  institute  a 
massive  legalization  program.  Let's  not  allow  that  to  happen  without  making  every 
effort  to  give  the  Immigration  Service  the  support  it  needs  to  do  the  job  that  the 
Congress  and  the  American  people  expect. 
Thank  you. 


Hughes  Asks  Tougher  Immigration  Enforcement 

Washington,  D.C. — Congressman  Bill  Hughes  (D.-N.J.)  has  warned  that  any  am- 
nesty program  for  illegal  aliens,  or  laws  to  punish  the  employers  of  illegal  aliens, 
will  be  fruitless  unless  tougher  measures  are  taken  to  police  the  Nation  s  borders. 

In  testimony  before  the  House  Judiciary  Subcommittee  on  Immigration,  Refugees 
and  International  Law,  which  is  considering  immigration  reform  legislation,  Hughes 
said  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service  (INS)  must  be  given  greater  re- 
sources to  stem  the  flow  of  illegal  aliens. 

"Amnesty  for  illegal  aliens  without  increased  immigration  enforcement  and 
border  control  activity  will  only  encourage  thousands  of  new  immigrants  to  come 
into  this  country  illegally,"  Hughes  declared,  "and  will  require  another  amnesty 
program  in  the  near  future. 

"None  of  us  want  to  be  back  here  in  5  years  only  to  find  that  even  after  amnesty 
we  have  uncounted  millions  of  new  illegal  aliens  within  our  borders,"  he  said. 

To  bolster  his  contention,  Hughes  cited  the  1981  recommendations  of  the  Select 
Commission  on  Immigration  and  Refugee  Policy  which  stated  that  legalization  of 
undocumented  aliens  not  proceed  until  appropriate  enforcement  mechanisms  have 
been  instituted. 

"Unfortunately,  the  current  Administration  and  its  predecessor  has  been  unwill- 
ing to  provide  for  a  sufficient  increase  in  the  numbers  of  border  patrol,  investiga- 
tions, inspections  and  anti-smuggling  personnel  to  assure  that  the  numbers  of  aliens 
entering  the  country  will  be  significantly  reduced,"  Hughes  said. 

"As  a  result,  border  agents  are  virtually  overrun,  and  immigration  inspectors 
cannot  control  tourists  and  visitors  who  enter  the  United  States  as  'nonimmigrants' 
and  then  remain,"  he  said.  "Overworked  and  under-supported  INS  investigators 
cannot  curtail  the  booming  business  in  alien-smuggling,  false  documents,  marriage 
frauds,  and  the  placement  of  undocumented  aliens  in  U.S.  jobs." 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Let  me  say  this,  Bill:  as  a  result  of  the  concerns 
which  you  expressed  very  vividly  and  forcefully  at  the  full  commit- 
tee of  markup,  and  in  floor  debate,  we  have  been — at  least  I  have 
on  my  own  behalf  and  I  believe  the  subcommittee  shares  my 
view — sympathetically  disposed  to  placing  right  in  the  bill  the  per- 
sonnel, the  financial  resources,  the  techniques  and  some  of  the 
mechanisms  that  will  be  needed  not  only  to  enforce  at  the  borders 
and  in  the  interior,  but  also  to  speed  up  the  paperwork  handling 
for  the  regular  INS  activities  Of  course,  it  is  especially  important 
for  those  which  are  under  the  bill,  the  legalization  and  employer 
sanction. 

Based  on  yesterday's  hearings,  I  believe  our  subcommittee  is 
sympathetically  disposed  to  it.  You  have  focused  on  this  particular 
aspect,  the  need  to  put  our  money  where  our  mouth  is.  You  have 
given  us  a  lot  of  food  for  thought. 

The  Los  Angeles  Times  editorial  of  December  27,  1982,  supports 
our  bill,  but  they  suggested  three  or  four  areas  that  should  be  im- 
proved or  at  least  attended  to  in  the  new  bill. 

Their  leadoff  recommendation  is  instructive  here: 

Now  that  Simpson-Mazzoli  will  have  a  chance  to  refine  their  bill  even  further, 
they  should  make  several  changes  that  should  help  it  with  enactment  next  year. 
They  should  include  budget  appropriations  to  pay  for  the  many  reforms  envisioned 
by  the  act. 


179 

They  go  on  to  talk  about  that  part  of  INS  charged  with  carrying 
out  the  responsibilities  in  the  act,  and  the  regular  responsibilities 
of  enforcing  the  border. 

So  I  think  this  discussion  that  began  last  year  is  certainly  going 
to  yield  fruit  this  year.  I  look  forward  to  your  help,  Bill,  because  we 
are   not  talking  about   peanuts.   We're   talking  about   really  big 

money. 

For  example,  without  even  half  trying,  our  staff  has  developed 
the  need  for  perhaps  as  many  as  2,500  additional  people  for  the  Im- 
migration Service  in  its  various  activities,  costing  as  much  as  $160 
million. 

I  appreciate  your  comments  and  would  devotedly  ask  for  your 
help  when  it  comes  time  to  propose  to  our  committee,  and  to  Con- 
gress which  is  wrapped  up  in  economizing  and  retrenchnient,  that 
we  cannot  be  pennywise  and  pound  foolish  here.  By  saving  a  few 
cents  here,  we  are  going  to  condemn  future  generations,  to  a  total- 
ly chaotic  immigration  policy  and  totally  uncontrollable  borders, 
and  neither  one  of  these  is  desirable. 

You  say  you  would  have  a  hard  time  voting  for  legalization,  a 
hard  time  voting  for  the  bill,  unless  you  felt  we  were  putting  our 
ducks  in  a  row,  unless  you  felt  that  we  were  taking  the  proper 
stance  to  enforce  the  law  and  secure  the  borders.  We  may  not  be 
able  to  reach  a  point  where  empirically  we  can  test  out  the  fact 
that  all  people  who  are  seeking  entry  are  being  turned  away  and 
apprehended. 

If  this  money  were  put  in  the  bill,  if  we  put  some  positions  in  the 
bill,  would  that  allay  your  fears?  Would  you  then  be  willing  to  kind 
of  take  a  leap  in  the  dark  on  the  basis  of  what  these  people  and 
what  this  money  might  yield  in  the  future,  rather  than  waiting  for 
a  time  when  somehow  some  independent  group  says,  "Yes,  now 
that  law  is  enforceable"?  What  is  your  feeling? 

Mr.  Hughes.  I  don't  think  there  is  a  standard  you  can  measure  it 
against.  When  I  was  drafting  an  amendment  that  would  put  some 
enforcement  money  in  the  budget,  we  wrestled  with  the  question  of 
how  you  determine  whether  you  have  done  enough.  You  know, 
what  is  enough? 

But  I  would  say,  probably  yes.  I'd  have  to  see  in  what  context.  I 
would  much  prefer  to  see  us  tie  the  commitment  resources  to  a 
sunsetting,  for  instance,  of  the  employer  sanction  provision.  For  in- 
stance, I  can  see,  not  just  in  this  administration  but  in  future  ad- 
ministrations, taking  the  one  thing  that  everybody  finds  a  little 
easier  to  support— except  maybe  the  business  community— and 
that  is  employer  sanctions,  and  then  forgetting  about  the  commit- 
ment resources. 

We  are  in  for  some  trying  budgetary  times.  I  heard  the  policy 
last  night,  and  I  didn't  hear  anybody  mention  two  areas  I  am  con- 
cerned about — crime  and  immigration.  Let's  face  it:  during  the 
budget  debate  last  year,  I  listened  for  3  days  and  I  never  heard 
anybody  talk  about  commitment  to  immigration  or  crime.  I  heard  a 
lot  of  other  social  and  domestic  programs  mentioned,  and  not  once 
did  I  hear  immigration  mentioned. 

I  would  suggest  that  if  you  polled  today,  you'd  find  these  two 
areas  are  right  at  the  top  of  the  economic  issues:  people  are  con- 


180 

cerned  about  both  areas.  So  I  would  tie  it  to  the  employer  sanc- 
tions; I'd  sunset  it,  and  make  sure  the  commitment  is  there. 

I  would  suggest  we  use  the  registry  as  a  way  of  possibly  going  to 
legalization,  tying  legalization  to  the  registry  and  moving  it  ahead. 
I  don't  see  how  we  could  process  anywhere  from  25  to  12  million 
illegal  aliens,  depending  on  what  we  find  to  be  the  situation,  given 
the  resources  we  have.  I  think  a  far  preferable  approach  would  be 
to  use  the  registry,  move  it  ahead  in  maybe  two  stages,  and  in  the 
process  put  employer  sanctions  in,  put  the  commitments  into  re- 
sources, at  the  border,  for  investigative  resources,  and  computer 
computer  capability  to  do  the  cross-indexing,  the  checking,  and  the 
tracking  that  has  to  be  done. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Bill,  I  appreciate  your  saying  that.  I  hope  you 
would  not  totally  end  the  possibility  that  you  could  support  a  legal- 
ization similar  to  the  one  in  this  bill  of  a  single-track  or  two-track 
approach.  If  you  had  the  opportunity  to  sit  down  with  us  and  listen 
to  some  of  the  people  talk  about  the  question  of  legalization,  it  is 
an  immensely  difficult  problem.  My  own  personal  judgment  is  just 
changing  the  registry  date — though  that  certainly  could  clear  up 
some  of  the  underbrush  and  some  of  the  more  difficult  older 
cases — it  probably  would  not  really  solve  the  problem. 

So  I  hope  you  would  not  totally,  draw  the  line  at  not  supporting 
a  bill  that  has  a  very,  very  generous  kind  of  legalization  program 
in  it,  more  generous  than  just  registry  dates,  though  I  do  not  think 
registry  and  legalization  are  mutually  exclusive.  I  think  you  can 
have  them  both,  as  we  have  in  the  draft  of  our  bill. 

Second,  as  an  articulate  spokesman  on  the  whole  issue,  I  would 
hope  that  you  could,  when  it  comes  time  to  take  this  bill  to  the  full 
committee,  help  us  make  the  point  with  our  colleagues  that  to  do 
this  thing  right,  and  to  do  it  effectively,  we  must  give  the  Immigra- 
tion Service,  which  will  be  charged  with  the  most  responsibilities, 
the  people  and  the  money  they  need  to  do  the  job. 

Mr.  Hughes.  Mr.  Chairman,  I  think  you  know,  when  the  bill  was 
before  the  full  committee,  a  couple  of  us  had  key  votes;  and  the 
fact  that  you  and  Dan  Lungren  have  come  out  with  a  piece  of  legis- 
lation gives  it  a  presumption  of  validity. 

I  would  keep  an  open  mind  on  that  issue.  I  haven't  had  an  oppor- 
tunity to  examine  these  painful  issues  like  you  have.  You  probably 
started  out  where  I  am  now  and  ended  up  with  no  alternatives,  and 
I  recognize  that. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  We  both  do,  I  think.  When  you  are  faced  with  a 
concept  of  a  generous  legalization,  something  other  than  changing 
registry  dates,  you  sort  of  instinctively  or  reflexively  shrink  from 
it,  until  you  examine  it  to  see  how  it  fits  in  with  the  pattern. 

Standing  by  itself,  no.  Nobody  is  for  a  stand-alone  kind  of  legal- 
ization, as  we  are  not  really  for  a  stand-alone  kind  of  enforcement 
or  a  stand-alone  kind  of  employer  sanctions.  But  in  a  symmetrical 
package  where  they  fit  together  and  make  a  picture,  like  pieces  of 
mosaic,  then  I  think  it  is  eminently  supportable. 

But  as  you  say,  the  fact  that  the  subcommittee  is  disposed  to 
doing  something  along  the  lines  of  more  money  for  INS  certainly 
stems  from  the  debate  which  began  last  year  on  this  question. 
Unless  we  put  money  in  the  bill,  where  people  can  see  it  and  touch 
it  and  taste  it,  we  are  not  going  to  get  very  far. 


181 

Mr.  Hughes.  Sure. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  gentleman  from  California,  our  ranking 
member,  is  recognized  for  5  minutes. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  Bill,  we  both  appreciate  the  fact  that  you  are 
stressing  the  enforcement  side.  I  think  we  both  come  to  that.  I 
came  to  it  when  I  was  trying  to  answer  a  question  from  someone 
who  was  delivering  a  message  from  some  constituents  about  how 
they  were  very  concerned  about  legalization.  And  finally  when  I 
got  down  to  it  and  said,  "What  are  you  going  to  do  with  these 
people?"  they  said,  "Oh,  no,  we  don't  want  to  send  them  back,  but 
you  ought  to  have  people  on  the  border,  you  ought  to  have  en- 
hanced enforcement  before  you  have  that.  Otherwise,  the  border 
will  be  inundated,"  as  if  it  isn't  already. 

But  I  understood  what  they  were  saying,  and  finally  I  thought 
we  might  as  well  put  it  in.  We  are  trying  to  move  the  Justice  De- 
partment in  that  direction.  I  think  we're  nudging  them  along. 
Mr.  Hughes.  Good  luck. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  One  of  the  concerns  I  have  is  that  you  have 
always  tied  the  legalization  and  enforcement  sides  together.  I  un- 
derstand that.  But  here  you  mentioned,  and  in  the  amendment  you 
had  last  year  I  recall  you  tied  the  increased  numbers  of  people,  in- 
creased enforcement,  with  employer  sanctions.  That  is,  as  I  recall, 
the  way  you  drew  your  amendment  last  year  that  we  considered. 
The  sanctions  would  not  go  into  effect  until  we  had  the  enhanced 
manpower.  And  my  question  is:  Why  do  you  tie  those  together? 

Mr.  Hughes.  Because  I  know  that's  what  the  administration 
likes  first. 

Mr.  LUNGREN.  OK. 

Mr.  Hughes.  And  the  thing  that  they  like  least  is  spending  any 
money. 

It's  my  perception  of  where  the  support  was  lacking. 
Mr.  Lungren.  Now,  the  other  question  is  on  registry.  Something 
was  brought  up  to  us  by  the  Attorney  General  yesterday  that  I  had 
not  even  thought  of.  They  indicated— of  course  they  support  a  le- 
galization program— stressing  legalization,  not  amnesty— but  they 
disagreed  with  us  bringing  up  the  registry  date  as  we  had  in  the 
bill  last  year  and  the  way  it's  introduced  now.  One  of  the  reasons 
they  suggested  was  because  if  you  bring  the  registry  date  up,  there 
is  no  corresponding  disability  to  receive  welfare  benefits  as  we  put 
in  the  package  with  respect  to  the  legalization  program. 

Have  you  thought  about  that  at  all?  What  are  your  thoughts 
about  that? 
Mr.  Hughes.  I  think  we  could  cure  that  right  in  the  legislation. 
Mr.  Lungren.  My  question  is:  Do  you  support  the  registry  be- 
cause that  would  allow  them  to  have  these  benefits,  or  do  you  just 
think  that's  an  easier  way  of  doing  it? 
Mr.  Hughes.  No;  I  think  that's  a  more  orderly  way  of  doing  it. 
Mr.  Lungren.  The  only  problem,  of  course,  with  the  registry  is 
that  it  will  require  the  same  sort  of  processing  that  the  other  will. 
Mr.  Hughes.  I  understand,  but  we  can  do  it  in  stages. 
Mr.  Mazzoli.  We  can  do  it  all  in  stages;  yes. 
The  gentleman  from  Florida  is  recognized  for  5  minutes. 
Mr.  Smith.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 
You  will  excuse  me  if  I'm  a  little  late. 


182 

Mr.  Hughes.  Good  morning. 

Mr.  Smith.  At  10  o'clock,  we  have  a  hearing  on  packaging? 

Mr.  Hughes.  Antitampering — Tylenol. 

Mr.  Smith.  You  and  I  agree,  Mr.  Hughes,  on  some  of  the  issues, 
esp)ecially  in  the  area  of  enforcement  and  the  fact  that,  quite  hon- 
estly, the  administration  has  shown  a  rather  slow  movement 
toward  spending  any  kind  of  money. 

What  would  you  suggest  in  enforcement  if  we  could  not  get  the 
kinds  of  dollars' that  we  know  are  necessary  to  put  into  the  enforce- 
ment effort?  What  do  you  suggest  as  some  possible  alternative? 
Stronger  sanction?  Deterred  effect  rather  than  having  to  actually 
go  out  and  do  it? 

Mr.  Hughes.  I  don't  think  there  is  any  alternative.  I  think  that 
the  administration  has  finally  moved  away  from  this  nonsense  that 
we  have  to  do  more  with  less  in  the  area  of  law  enforcement.  We 
have  made  some  progress,  but  we  are  still  operating  in  the  margin. 
I  don't  think  there  is  any  alternative  to  spending  the  money  and 
beefing  up  enforcement.  The  whole  Justice  budget  is  S3. 5  billion, 
compared  to  what? — S270  billion  for  the  military? 

For  the  first  time,  the  Attorney  General  compared  our  commit- 
ment to  enforcement  resources  to  our  commitment  to  national  de- 
fense needs  in  an  editorial  that  appeared  recently  in  the  Washing- 
ton Post.  But  the  comparison  is  only  in  w^ords  thus  far,  because  we 
are  still  catching  up:  we  still  don't  have  anywhere  near  the  re- 
sources we  need  to  do  a  decent  job,  not  just  in  immigration  but 
across  the  w^hole  spectrum  of  crime  issues.  And  I  don't  think  there 
is  any  alternative. 

Mr.  Smith.  Now,  in  New  Jersey  you  have  some  problem  w4th  ref- 
erence to  illegal  refugees.  They  migrate  from  my  area  and  general- 
ly tend  to  go  up  to  New  Jersey  because  of  pre\'ious  waves  of  migra- 
tion. 

Mr.  Hughes.  That's  mostly  in  northern  New  Jersey,  The  refu- 
gees we  have  are  from  northern  New  Jersey  who  come  down  to 
southern  New  Jersey.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Smith.  We  have  that,  too.  Florida  has  that  north-south  syn- 
drome. 

But  in  your  state,  would  I  be  correct  in  saying  that  the  adminis- 
tration has  also  been  lax  in  reimbursing  the  dollar  amounts  spent 
by  State  and  local  agencies  to  combat  crime  involving  the  refugees, 
health  care  costs,  social  welfare  costs,  et  cetera? 

Mr.  Hughes.  No  question  about  it.  The  Federal  Government  has 
been  a  terrible  partner.  I  mean,  this  is  a  national  problem,  not  a 
State  or  local  problem.  But  many  of  the  commitments  that  have 
been  made  have  been  made  by  the  States.  They  don't  have  the  re- 
sources either,  but  they  have  ended  up  with  the  problem.  Yes,  in 
the  area  of  social  services,  whether  it  be  education,  public  assist- 
ance, housing  assistance,  or  any  area  you  look,  the  States  have  had 
to  pick  up  the  shortfall. 

Mr.  Smith.  So  you  wouldn't  be  adverse,  then,  ultimately  to  not 
only  an  enforcement  section  in  this  bUl,  increasing  the  number  of 
enforcing  agencies  and  the  numbers  within  those  agencies,  but  also 
additional  dollars  in  terms  of  enforcement? 

Mr.  Hughes.  No.  In  fact,  I  helped  lead  the  fight  last  time  to 
mgike  that  commitment. 


183 

Mr.  Smith.  Thank  you  very  much.  I  appreciate  that. 

Mr.  Mazzou.  I  thank  the  gentleman  from  Florida  and  our  other 
gentleman  from  Florida. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

I  had  an  interesting  lunch  last  Friday  with  General  Chapman 
who  at  one  time  was  INS  Commissioner,  and  he  made  almost  the 
same  points  that  you're  making.  He  is  very  supportive  of  this  legis- 
lation we  are  working  with,  but  the  enforcement  section  he  says  is 
grossly  missing,  and  he  cited  quite  a  few  statistics  that  he  had  re- 
membered from  his  days  which  really  haven't  changed  that  much 
over  the  years. 

So  I  feel  very  sympathetic  to  what  you're  suggesting,  and  I  cer- 
tainly appreciate  the  fact  that  you  have  come  here  this  morning  to 
say  it.  As  you  know,  I  am  personally  opposed  to  the  legalization 
section.  I  think  the  registry  date  satisfies  that  requirement.  But  I 
certainly  don't  think  it  does  \\dthout  an  enforcement  effort  that  is 
far,  far  greater  than  it  is  today. 

Mr.  Hughes.  That  would  be  my  preference,  too,  Bill.  But  I  want 
a  bill,  and  that's  why,  in  response  to  the  chairman's  question,  I 
kept  an  open  mind.  If  that's  the  wisdom  of  the  committee,  I  want 
to  work  with  the  committee  in  trying  to  get  a  bill.  We  need  immi- 
gration reform  in  this  country. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  I  agree  with  you  wholly.  Thank  you  for  coming. 

Mr.  Smith.  Will  the  gentleman  \deld,  Mr.  McCoUum. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  I'm  sorry.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Hughes. 

Mr.  Smith.  Mr.  Hughes,  are  you  aware  that  in  this  budget  for 
Justice,  in  the  enforcement  section  for  INS,  for  instance,  there  has 
been  no  increase  in  positions  whatsoever?  In  fact,  a  decrease  in 
terms  of  the  creeping  inflation  problem,  et  cetera? 

Mr.  Hughes.  Yes,  we've  lost  ground. 

Mr.  Smith.  And  that  in  Customs  1,775  positions  have  been  cut 
for  1984? 

Mr.  Hughes.  Yes.  As  I  say,  those  are  the  signs  that  would  sug- 
gest to  me  that  a  sense-of-the-Congress  resolution  on  this  issue  is 
not  adequate. 

There  was  a  section  in  the  immigration  bill  that  in  essence,  was 
just  the  sense  of  the  Congress.  I  don't  think  that  is  what  we  need:  I 
think  we  need  commitment  of  resources,  and  I  think  it  has  to  be 
tied,  as  I  have  indicated,  to  the  other  sections  of  the  bill  that  the 
administration  and  other  groups  would  find  attractive. 

Mr.  Smith.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  Mazzou.  Thank  you. 

Just  another  couple  of  seconds.  I  think  it  ought  to  be  noted,  to 
keep  the  record  really  balanced  here,  that  the  Immigration  Service 
has  more  people  actually  in  service  now  than  they  did  before  this 
particular  committee  began  its  work  2  years  ago  and  in  effect 
during  the  97th  Congress. 

The  reason  in  part  they  have  not  asked  for  more  people  is  be- 
cause they  had  a  lot  of  authorized  slots  in  the  past  that  were  never 
filled.  Those  slots  are  starting  to  be  filled.  And  the  information  we 
have  is  there  are  633  more  full-time  employees  at  the  end  of  1982 
than  there  were  at  the  beginning  of  1982.  So  there  is  slow  progress. 
It's  not  quick  enough  to  suit  me  or  you,  Larry.  And  we  are  going  to 
make  sure  that  there  is  something  else  done  on  our  bill. 


184 

But  to  give  credit,  with  our  support  and  with  your  support,  Bill, 
and  the  Congress',  there  has  been  a  trend  upward  finally  in  the  en- 
forcement and  the  service  to — public.  Not  just  enforcement,  be- 
cause the  INS  is  more  than  just  apprehending  people;  it  is  us 
taking  care  of  naturalization  papers  and  all  of  the  other  work  they 
have. 

Second,  I  will  have  sent  over  to  your  office,  Bill,  what  I  think  is 
an  excellent  piece  of  work  done  by  the  INS,  an  implementation 
plan  for  this  bill.  The  testimony  that  Commissioner  Nelson  will 
give  later  today  will  deal  in  very  detailed  ways  with  how  the  Serv- 
ice has  been  working  for  the  last  6  months  in  setting  up  an  imple- 
mentation program. 

Again,  I  am  not  sure  they  could  do  it  without  more  money  from 
us  and  more  people,  but  to  give  credit  where  credit  is  due,  they 
have  endeavored  to  develop  a  mechanism  which,  if  this  bill  is 
passed,  would  engage  and  would  yield  the  results  we  want — an  en- 
forceable employer  sanctions  program,  a  useful  and  effective  legal- 
ization program.  I  want  to  send  it  over  just  to  have  that  as  a  back- 
ground to  show  that  they  have  not  been  twiddling  their  thumbs 
down  there. 

Thank  you  very  much,  Bill.  We  appreciate  your  being  with  us 
today. 

Mr.  Hughes.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Let  me  just  make  the  run  here.  Congressman 
Leland,  Congressman  Mica,  Congressman  Daub,  Congressman 
Fauntroy.  It  looks  like  we  have  reached  a  point  for  a  slight  recess. 

This  committee  will  stand  in  recess  until  our  witnesses  present 
themselves. 

[Recess.] 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  subcommittee  will  come  to  order. 

We  welcome  Congressman  Dan  Mica  from  Florida.  Dan,  your 
statement  which  you  previously  filed  will  be  made  a  part  of  the 
record,  but  you  are  free  to  read  it  or  talk  from  it,  whatever  is  your 
pleasure.  We  welcome  you  here  today. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HON.  DANIEL  A.  MICA,  REPRESENTATIVE  FROM 
THE  14th  DISTRICT  OF  THE  STATE  OF  FLORIDA 

Mr.  Mica.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman.  With  the  fact  that  my  com- 
ments will  be  inserted  in  the  record,  I'll  just  make  a  few  brief  com- 
ments, if  I  may. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Mica.  First,  let  me  commend  you  in  particular  and  the  com- 
mittee for  the  work  you  have  done.  I  don't  think  there  has  been  a 
time  in  this  Nation's  history  when  we  needed  to  act  and  act  with 
more  resolve  than  we  do  right  now  in  the  immigration  program.  I 
commend  you.  You  have  tackled  the  problem  that  heretofore — and 
those  who  have  been  in  the  Congress  for  the  last  dozen  years  recog- 
nize that — others  shied  away  from. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  We  had  expected  you  to  be  surrounded.  We  were 
hoping  you  were  going  to  be  surrounded. 

Mr.  Mica.  I  thought  it  might  be  the  desire  of  the  committee  to 
keep  me  on  an  even  keel. 


185 

Mr.  Smith.  Mr.  McCollum  and  I  will  gladly  sit  next  to  him  on 
each  side. 

Mr.  Mica.  You're  the  two  they  don't  want. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  We  have  a  perfect  mix  here.  We  have  the  left  and 
right  sides. 

Mr.  Mica.  What  I  thought  I  would  do,  assuming  my  colleagues 
who  oppose  this  measure  may  come  in,  is  put  this  in  a  frame  of 
reference  that  I  think  would  appeal  at  least  certainly  to  the  people 
that  I  represent  as  well  as  others.  Simply  stated,  the  cost  of  the  il- 
legal immigration  in  this  country  is  phenomenal.  I  think  we  men- 
tioned in  one  of  our  earlier  meetings  that  a  study  in  Miami  of 
10,000  illegal  immigrants  cost  $10  million  in  a  1-year  period. 

Now,  certainly  it  is  ideal  that  we  try  to  have  as  free  an  immigra- 
tion policy  as  possible,  that  we  try  to  accommodate  every  nation, 
people  who  are  downtrodden  and  who  want  to  come  here.  But  we 
have  reached  a  chaotic  state,  and  if  I  could  relate  the  Florida  expe- 
rience, the  Miami  experience,  as  a  real  rationale  for  moving  now, 
because  we  have  lost  all  sense  of  reason  in  many  parts  of  south 
Florida.  The  citizenry  is  saying,  "Lock  the  doors,  put  up  the  fences, 
keep  them  out." 

Ten  years  down  the  road  where  we  may  not  have  a  Congress 
right  now  who  says  that,  we  may  indeed  have  a  citizenry  nation- 
wide that  will  be  saying  that,  and  that  certainly  isn't  what  any  of 
us  want. 

I  think  what  we  are  trying  to  do  is  say  we'd  like  to  see  a  reason- 
able, rational,  sane  immigration  policy.  And  I  will  go  further  than 
I  ever  have  before  on  legalization  and  say  this:  Obviously  with  the 
emotion  in  our  district  we  all  have  some  concern  in  Florida.  My 
concern  is  not  to  say  that  we  need  to  just  not  look  at  the  problem.  I 
have  tried  to  put  it  in  this  perspective. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  We  will  fill  Larry  in  with  all  the  details. 

There's  a  little  bit  of  insider  humor  here. 

Mr.  Mica.  That's  right. 

Mr.  Smith.  Knowing  Mr.  Mica,  I'm  sure. 

Mr.  Mica.  We  do  have  to  acknowledge  that  there  are  many  here 
who  will  never  return  to  their  native  country.  If  I  had  a  prefer- 
ence, I  would  like  to  see  us  put  in  place  the  mechanisms  to  control 
our  borders,  to  get  everything  set  up,  to  make  arrangements  for 
the  appropriate  deportation  or  allowance  for  individuals  to  stay  in 
this  country— get  that  all  set  up,  and  then  discuss  whether  or  not 
there  would  be  amnesty. 

And  I  felt  from  the  very  beginning  that  there  would  be  sorne 
feeling  on  the  part  of  those  in  other  countries — and  we  had  this  sit- 
uation in  Haiti,  and  I  understand  it  happened  in  California — when 
there  was  a  discussion  of  amnesty  many  thought  if  they  could  get 
here,  for  whatever  misinformed  reason,  before  whatever  deadline, 
or  even  get  here  and  postdate  checks,  they  would  be  given  that  am- 
nesty, and  therefore  we  had  greater  flows  of  illegals  prior  to  any 
legislation.  We  went  through  this  a  couple  of  times  before. 

So,  yes,  I  will  acknowledge  we  need  to  deal  with  that  problem.  In 
an  ideal  situation  I  would  prefer  to  first  put  in  place  our  controls, 
our  procedures,  so  that  we  have  a  little  different  system  than  we 
have  now;  and  second,  a  procedure  for  dealing  with  those  who  are 
already  here.  And  that's  a  long  way  from  where  we  started  out. 


186 

But  I  do  feel,  No.  1,  that  we  are  in  a  position  now,  because  you 
have  done  so  much  work  on  this  bill,  to  have  the  first  comprehen- 
sive reform  that  we  have  had  in  I  think  in  my  lifetime.  I  think  it's 
needed.  And  to  have  the  Miami  experience  very  close  to  my  own 
district,  to  see  that  if  it  does  run  unchecked,  a  future  Congress  will 
probably  not  be  as  reasonable,  as  rationale,  and  logical  in  their  ap- 
proach that  there  will  be  a  call  to  close  all  the  doors. 

So  if  we  can  put  something  with  this  basis  that  you  have  put  into 
it  into  place  now,  it  may  not  please  all  groups  on  each  side,  but 
certainly  I  think  it  would  be  a  beginning  to  bring  order.  And  once 
we  have  that  order  in  place,  maybe  a  little  more  liberal  thinking — 
I  hate  say  that 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  You  hate  the  word. 

Mr.  Mica.  A  little  more  liberal  thinking  on  the  subject  nation- 
wide so  we  can  continue  to  be  the  open  and  free  society  with 
regard  to  immigration  that  we  always  have  been  in  the  past. 

I  might  indicate  something  that  surprised  a  number  of  congres- 
sional leaders  who  visited  south  Florida.  Some  of  the  most  vocal, 
emotional,  and  actually  vicious  comments  about  closing  down  our 
borders  came  from  several  different  minority  groups  in  my  district 
who  felt  threatened. 

So  the  point  is  it's  not  a  matter  of  positioning  blacks  against 
whites  or  Hispanics  against  non-Hispanics  or  Haitians  against 
Cubans  or  what  have  you.  The  result  is  there.  We  have  had  the 
problem.  If  we  can  bring  some  control,  some  order  to  it,  I  think  it 
would  be  helpful. 

[The  complete  statement  follows:] 

Statement  of  the  Hon.  Daniel  A.  Mica,  a  Representative  in  the  Congress  From 

THE  State  of  Florida 

Mr.  Chairman,  Members  of  the  Subcommittee.  As  most  of  you  know,  the  South 
Florida  area  I  represent  suffered  an  emotional  and  economic  trauma  as  the  result  of 
the  unchecked  flow  of  illegal  migrants  onto  Florida's  shores.  At  one  point,  that  flow 
was  estimated  to  be  2,000  illegal  migrants  a  month.  We  must  not  permit  such  a  situ- 
ation to  occur  again.  It  is  imperative  that  we  reconsider  our  immigration  policies,  so 
long  outdated  and  inadequate,  and  offer  this  nation  legislation  that  can  solve  our 
current  nationwide  immigration  problems.  We  must  make  certain  that  the  experi- 
ences endured  by  Floridians  because  of  the  massive  influx  of  migrants  in  1980  will 
not  occur  again  anywhere  in  this  country. 

Some  of  the  immigration  problems  unique  to  Florida  have  been  alleviated  by  a  set 
of  circumstances  particular  to  our  situation:  The  Mica  amendment,  which  has 
stemmed  the  flow  of  refugees  form  Haiti — and  an  Administration  focus  on  the  prob- 
lems in  South  Florida— have  combined  to  reduce  the  immediate  inflow  problem. 
However,  the  consequences  of  the  1980  migration  remain.  The  Cuban-Haitian  en- 
trants remain  in  our  state  causing  a  tremendous  strain  on  state  and  local  resources. 
The  limbo  status  given  to  the  migrants  between  May  and  October  of  1980  leaves  the 
obligation  of  care  for  them  unclear.  I  have  also  learned  from  INS  officials  in  Miami 
that  the  resettlement  program,  meant  to  ease  the  economic  and  social  strain  on 
Florida,  does  not  seem  to  be  working.  Most  of  those  immigrants  who  were  relocated 
to  other  states  are  returning  to  Florida,  and  especially  South  Florida,  for  reasons  of 
their  own. 

We  cannot  escape  the  complications  and  tensions  born  of  an  unplanned  and  un- 
checked migration:  the  competition  for  jobs  and  housing;  the  special  needs  for  lan- 
guage training,  job  training,  medical  care  and  housing  assistance.  The  drain  on 
social  welfare  services  and  funds.  No  local  or  state  government  is  prepared  to  ac- 
commodate such  drastic  change.  No  amount  of  compassion  and  human  concern  can 
resolve  the  matrix  of  problems  resulting  from  inadequate  and  unworkable  immigra- 
tion policies. 

We  cannot  afford  a  repreat  of  the  international  situation  that  plunged  South  Flor- 
ida into  chaos  a  few  years  ago.  We  are  no  better  prepared  today  than  we  were  then 


187 

to  deal  with  the  political,  economic,  and  psychological  consequences— and  unless  we 
pass  major  new  legislation,  various  states  in  this  nation  face  a  repeat  of  our  unfor- 
tunate experience. 

For  these  reasons,  I  am  here  today  to  urge  the  Committee  to  report  the  Immigra- 
tion bill  as  quickly  as  possible— so  that  Congress  may  consider  the  needed  reforms 
and  act  in  the  interests  of  the  American  people.  I  believe  that  what  the  American 
people  want  is  a  policy  that  will  bring  immigration  back  under  the  control  of  their 
government,  a  policy  designed  to  phase  out  illegal  immigration  and  place  reasonable 
limits  on  legal  immigration. 

Some  disagreements  may  still  exist  with  respect  to  certain  provisions  of  immigra- 
tion reform,  but  the  momentum  for  passage— of  a  uniform  and  equitable  package  of 
legislation— is  more  compelling  than  the  minor  differences  we  may  have.  We  cannot 
let  another  year  pass  without  these  necessary  reforms. 

Thank  you  for  the  attention  this  Subcommittee  has  directed  to  this  most  serious 
and  imminent  problem.  I  look  forward  to  continuing  to  work  with  each  of  you  as  the 
Congress  proceeds  to  review  and  rewrite  our  immigration  laws. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  You  are  slowly  but  surely  getting  there,  Dan.  I  am 
proud  of  you.  You  do  not  ever  want  to  get  your  feet  in  concrete 
around  this  place.  I  think  that  is  to  your  credit. 

With  your  permission,  Mickey,  we  just  have  a  couple  of  quick 
questions  and  then  we  will  get  to  you. 

Let  me  just  mention  two  things,  Dan,  without  there  being  a  ques- 
tion. 

First,  we  think  the  bill  is  good  on  its  face  and  on  its  own  feet. 
But  unquestionably,  one  of  the  things  that  is  moving  this  bill 
along,  one  of  the  forces  that  is  giving  some  dynamic  to  this,  is  what 
Father  Hesburgh  has  many  times  said:  Unless  you  close  the  back 
door,  unless  you  gain  some  reasonable  control  over  illegal  entry— 
and  we  will  never  hermetically  seal  this  country,  nor  should  we— 
there  is  going  to  be  this  backlash  that  you  talked  about,  this  rather 
unfortunate  feeling  that  we  ought  to  then  say  no  to  everybody  and 
close  the  front  door. 

This  bill  tries  to  close  the  back  door  in  order  to  keep  the  front 
door  open.  That  is  really  what  this  Nation  has  always  stood  for. 

As  far  as  the  legalization  program  is  concerned— and  I  recognize 
that  the  Florida  delegation  has  spoken  on  it  in  an  important  way, 
and  for  the  most  part  in  a  unified  way— let  me  just  ask  you  to  take 
into  consideration  the  fact  that  through  this  legalization  program 
has  been  called  a  blanket  amnesty,  it  is  not.  These  people  will,  one 
by  one,  person  by  person,  have  to  be  examined.  That  is  a  long  and 
tortuous  and  arduous  process,  and  some  say  the  INS  is  not 
equipped  to  do  it.  We  will  talk  about  that  later  this  morning  with 
the  head  of  the  Immigration  Service.  Are  they  equipped?  Can  they 
be?  We,  as  a  subcommittee,  will  probably  help  them  to  be  equipped 
with  money  and  people. 

But  it  is  not  a  blanket  amnesty  in  this  bill.  It  doesn't  just  wave  a 
magic  wand  and  everybody  is  a  citizen.  For  one  thing,  nobody  be- 
comes a  citizen  even  after  they  have  been  examined  personally  and 
individually  for  at  least  5  years. 

Second,  depending  on  which  version  of  which  bill  you  want  to- 
read,  newly  legalized  aliens  have  strong  disabilities  leveled  against 
them  from  being  able  to  take  certain  kinds  of  welfare  assistance. 

Furthermore,  the  bill,  at  the  insistence  of  the  California  delega- 
tion and  of  the  National  Governors  Association  and  the  National 
Association  of  Counties,  has  a  reimbursement  formula  in  the  bill 
for  State  and  local  governments.  If  we  are  wrong  about  legalization 


188 

of  these  people— I  think  are  net-givers  instead  of  net-takers— then 
there  is  a  mechanism  built  in  to  allay  the  financial  impact  to  the 
communities.  The  gentlemen  from  Florida  raised  directly  with  the 
Attorney  General  the  fact  that  he  was  chagrined  and  dismayed 
that  there  was  not  enough  effort  being  devoted  by  the  administra- 
tion to  giving  local  jurisdictions  some  protection  against  what 
might  occur. 

I  only  ask  you  when  you  go  to  the  Florida  delegation,  you  all 
caucus  on  this  issue.  You  have  been  very  supportive  of  the  bill,  and 
we  deeply  appreciate  it. 

Thank  you  very  much. 

The  gentleman  from  California. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  I  will  be  very  interested  in  hearing  Mickey  in  ad- 
dition to  hearing  Dan.  I  just  wanted  to  say  when  I  read  the  Bible 
before  I  always  wondered  what  it  was  like  to  be  a  companion  to 
Saul  on  the  way  to  Damascus.  [Laughter.] 

I  appreciate  your  movement  and  your  thoughts. 

Mr.  Mica.  Well,  I've  come  a  long  way,  as  the  chairman  and  you 
know.  All  of  the  informative  statements  and  information  you  have 
given  me  have  helped  me  see  the  light  a  little  bit. 

I  would  say  this,  that  the  situation  with  regard  to  reimburse- 
ment is  vitally  important.  Even  though  many,  in  fact  I  think  prob- 
ably all,  of  the  Florida  Members  of  Congress  were  very  upset  about 
the  situation  and  how  it  developed,  once  it  developed,  everyone  of 
them  jumped  in  and  said,  "All  right,  let's  provide  the  necessary 
services  and  really  open  our  hearts  and  community  to  the  people 
who  are  here."  We  did.  And  we  are  left  holding  a  multimillion- 
dollar  debt. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  I  understand  that,  and  I  think  we  have  to  make 
some  legitimate  compromise  on  that.  One  of  the  things  we  have  to 
keep  in  mind,  however,  is  on  the  cost  side.  One  of  the  things  that 
could  torpedo  any  such  bill  is  if  the  costs  become  inordinate  that 
are  attached  to  the  bill.  And  you're  sort  of  betwixt  and  between. 
Some  say  you've  got  to  make  sure  you  cover  every  single  possible 
contingency,  and  if  you  err  on  the  side  of  generosity  of  too  much 
money,  that's  what  you  have  to  do.  On  the  other  hand,  some  forces 
will  say,  "Aha!  See  how  much  it's  going  to  cost  to  legalize  these 
people.  We  can't  legalize  them." 

So  we  do  have  to  tow  a  very,  very  tight  line  on  this. 

Mr.  Mica.  I  think  that's  the  point.  I  don't  mean  to  infringe  any 
longer  on  my  colleagues.  I'll  just  be  brief  on  this.  But  I  think  that's 
a  point  I  tried  to  reconcile  in  my  mind  when  I  came  here  and  said 
I'd  go  a  little  farther  on  the  legalization. 

In  an  ideal  situation,  my  colleagues  who  would  say,  just  blanket 
amnesty  or  whatever;  if  they  also  had  the  clout  to  provide  blanket 
funding,  it  certainly  would  change  the  situation  quite  a  bit.  But 
whichever  side  you  re  on,  it  is  realistic  to  understand  we  are  not 
going  to  be  able  to  provide  all  those  funds. 

Now,  maybe  all  the  political  winds  will  change  and  so  on,  but  it 
still  doesn't  change  the  situation  in  our  budget. 

So  I  recognize  that  finances  have  a  great  deal  to  do  with  it.  In 
my  own  community,  as  I  indicated— and  many  in  throughout  south 
Florida— I  literally  leaned  on  local  officials  to  open  up  housmg, 
open  up  armories,  open  up  facilities,  and  then  they  came  back  and 


189 

said,  "We've  done  it  and  they  won't  pay  us."  It  did  create  a  prob- 
lem. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you  very  much. 

The  gentleman  from  Florida. 

Mr.  Smith.  Mr.  Mica,  of  course  you  have  had  a  tremendous 
impact  in  your  district  from  this  problem  as  it  started  and  arose  a 
couple  of  years  ago.  My  district  having  partial  sections  of  Dade 
County  and  Miami,  I  am  living  with  this  problem  daily  now  be- 
cause a  lot  of  the  refugees  in  fact  are  living  in  my  district. 

Mr.  Mica.  When  we  did  the  redistricting,  we  worked  that  out  for 
you.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Smith.  We  are  not  always  sure  where. 

But  in  your  district— and  as  the  chairman  indicated,  I  took  this 
tack  with  the  Attorney  General  yesterday— not  only  for  the  budget- 
ing they  advanced  to  1984  and  for  the  block  grant  program,  not  re- 
imbursing for  block  grant,  which  is  attempting  to  utilize  as  a  basis 
for  their  support  of  this  bill,  but  also  for  what  has  happened  in  the 
last  couple  of  years,  to  which  you  just  alluded. 

In  Palm  Beach  you've  had  some  major  problems  with  reference 
to  outbreaks  of  disease,  hospitalization,  et  cetera,  medical  expenses 
among  others  which  are  not  being  reimbursed. 

Do  you  have  a  figure  to  some  degree  in  your  area  of  what  that 
amounts  to? 

Mr.  Mica.  I  wish  I  did.  I  do  not.  I  can  only  tell  you  the  list  is 
endless,  up  to  and  including  a  large  number  of  debts,  actual  debts 
of  individuals  who  were  attempting  to  be  smuggled  in,  and  this  is  a 
whole  different  side  of  this  issue.  But  it's  become  a  very  profitable 
business,  illegal  business  down  there,  second  only  to  illegal  drugs. 
And  when  conditions  aren't  right  to  put  these  people  ashore,  in 
several  instances  they  have  been  dumped  aside  and  they  couldn't 
swim,  and  we  have  had  large  numbers  of  deaths,  right  off  the 
shores  of  Palm  Beach.  ^ 

Mr.  Smith.  Well,  we  have  the  same  problem,  and  that  s  one  of 
the  things  that  as  a  member  of  this  committee  I  will  be  trying  to 
fight,  and  that  is  the,  I  feel,  ultimately  inappropriate  funding 
mechanisms  which  are  being  discussed  at  this  moment. 

Well,  I'm  not  so  sure  I'm  that  conscious  that  I  agree  wholeheart- 
edly, but  at  least  we  use  the  appropriate  terminology.  We  ought  to 
all  at  least  talk  the  same  language.  Then  we'll  decide  whether  or 
not  we're  philosophically  on  the  issue. 

I  have  grave  concerns  about  that  and  certainly  would  be  happy, 
since  you've  come  to  some  degree  a  little  bit  further  from  where 
you  were— if  that's  going  to  happen,  we  are  going  to  need  tremen- 
dous cost  reimbursement.  And  I  think  it's  incumbent  upon  us  in 
States— not  only  Florida;  we've  got  Texas,  California,  Arizona,  and 
a  large  number  of  other  places  where,  frankly,  they've  had  the 
problem  to  some  degree  worse  than  we  had — and  I  know  Mr. 
Leland  will  probably  tell  us  this,  but  they've  had  that  problem  for 
a  longer  period  than  we  have.  We  had  it  on  a  short,  gigantic  wave 
basis,  but  they  have  it  on  a  daily  continual  basis  day  after  day. 

And  these  things  really  to  some  degree  are  hopefully  going  to  be 
the  unifying  factors  that  bring  a  lot  of  people  together  to  finally 
decide  we  are  going  to  make  some  rational,  final  decision  on  this 
problem  and  jump  from  there  into  a  permanent  situation.  Funding 


190 

is  going  to  have  to  be  part  of  that,  and  I'm  hopeful  that  I  can  cer- 
tainly count  on  you  to  be  one  of  those  fighting  for  it,  because  I 
intend  to  be,  very  distinctly. 

Mr.  Mica.  Let  me  say,  if  I  may,  that  1  will  submit  for  the  record 
statistics  statewide  on  the  out-of-pocket  costs  for  the  State  of  Flor- 
ida. I'll  be  happy  to  do  that. 

Mr.  Smith.  We  gave  some  statistics  yesterday  in  terms  of  Jack- 
son Memorial  and  Hollywood  Memorial,  and  I  know  you  have  hos- 
pitals in  Palm  Beach  as  well  as  the  local  welfare  agencies  and  so 
on.  As  I  asked  the  Attorney  General:  "Even  when  you  talk  about 
block  grants,  what  happens  when  the  bucks  run  out  and  you  in  the 
local  area  still  have  the  people  there?  What  do  you  do  about  that? 
Close  your  eyes?"  If  you're  not  going  to  be  humanitarian,  then 
you're  not  going  to  be  anything.  And  you  can't  just  stop  providing 
services  when  the  services  are  required. 

Mr.  Mica.  Dade  County,  Fla.,  was  required  within  1  month  after 
Mariel  to  immediately  build  30  elementary  schools. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  To  the  credit  of  the  State  of  Florida,  you  have  to 
say  that  the  leadership  from  the  State  level  down  to  the  local  level 
has  been  remarkable  in  the  willingness  of  the  citizens  to  rally  to- 
gether, and  make  the  most  of  a  tough  situation.  This  has  been  no- 
table in  the  history  of  this  country.  We  do  not  think  that  ought  to 
be  tested  day  in  and  day  out,  and  that  we  should  say,  "Well,  they 
did  it  in  the  past  and  they  can  do  it  in  the  future."  But  I  think 
Florida  has  written  a  pretty  glorious  chapter  in  its  history,  the  way 
it  reacted  to  it. 

The  gentleman  from  Florida,  Mr.  McCollum. 

Mr.  McCollum.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

I  think  Mr.  Mica  from  Florida  has  expressed  pretty  much  the 
sentiments  of  the  Florida  delegation  with  regard  to  this  whole 
problem  of  legalization,  the  cost  and  so  forth.  While  I  think  I  share 
the  view  with  most  of  my  colleagues  that  legalization  is  not  appro- 
priate and  do  not  believe  quite  as  much  as  the  chairman  does  in 
the  dire  consequences  of  striking  it,  I  think  we  ultimately  will  pass 
this  bill  this  session.  I  am  very  optimistic  about  it,  more  so  than 
last  time,  but  we  all  would  probably  at  this  point  live  with  it  if  we 
don't  get  the  bill  out,  but  we'd  like  the  opportunity  to  get  it  out, 
and  particularly  live  with  it  if  we  can  have  the  kind  of  reimburse- 
ment. 

But  I'd  like  to  ask  the  gentleman  about  one  thing  that  very  often 
gets  shortshift,  not  from  the  chairman  and  not  from  the  subcom- 
mittee, but  from  the  public.  And  that  is  the  whole  area  of  adjudica- 
tion. In  Florida  we  have  recently  some  statistics  that  haven't 
gotten  a  lot  of  publicity,  and  I  don't  even  know  if  the  gentleman  is 
aware  of  them,  but  I  know  he's  aware  of  the  condition. 

After  Krome  disappeared  as  an  institution  for  holding  folks,  it 
turns  out  there  were  about  1,100  or  so  who  were  released  from 
there,  and  of  the  1,100,  I  was  advised  a  week  or  so  ago,  only  66 
have  ever  had  a  hearing  on  asylum.  All  of  them  were  supposed  to. 
And  there  are  all  kinds  of  reasons  for  that  which  primarily  is  the 
Federal  court  order  on  pro  bono  attorney  work  down  there,  but  a 
lot  of  other  strings  and  factors  which  I  will  be  inquiring  about  later 
today  with  the  INS  Commissioner. 


191 

But  in  this  bill  there  is  a  speed-up  of  the  adjudications  process 
which  I  am  supportive  of,  but  there  is  no  provision— we  were  not 
able  to  get  a  majority  last  time  in  the  committee,  of  either  this  or 
the  whole  committee— to  get  Federal  courts  out  of  the  process, 
which  I  think  the  gentleman  agreed  with  me  on  and  cosponsored 
the  bill  that  would  do  that,  and  then  actually  dropped  his  own  bill 
in  to  establish  an  article  I  and  gain  some  independence  in  this 

area. 
Would  the  gentleman  care  to  comment?  Would  he  continue  to 

support  this  article  I? 

Mr.  Mica.  Oh,  absolutely.  And  let  me  tell  you.  There  is  total 
prostration  on  the  part  of  the  legal  community  in  handling  this  in 
Florida,  both  pro  and  con.  Those  who  would  like  to  see  the  situa- 
tion as  a  delaying  tactic  are  having  a  heyday.  The  statement  has 
been  made  time  and  time  again  that  under  the  present  systeni,  it  is 
not  even  reasonably  possible  to  expect  that  we'd  get  a  fraction  of 
the  number  of  cases  handled  in  the  lifetimes  of  the  aliens  who  are 

here. 

So  without  a  doubt,  there  is  no  question,  and  I  think  in  candid 
conversations  those  who  are  using  it  as  delaying  tactics  will  tell 
you  that  the  best  way  to  handle  the  situation  as  far  as  having 
nothing  done  is  to  keep  the  court  system  exactly  the  way  it  is.  Be- 
cause all  we'll  do  is  just  touch  a  few  hundred  in  the  next  few  years 
at  the  present  rate. 

If  I  recall,  one  Federal  judge  was  tied  up  on  one  case  with  a  half- 
dozen  individuals  for  about  18  months.  And  we  are  talking  about 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  people. 

So  it  is  very  clear  that  the  present  system  is  in  no  way  handling 
the  situation. 

Now,  whether  you  agree  or  disagree  that  people  should  stay  or 
leave,  I  think  we  should  all  agree  that  we  should  have  a  legal 
system  that  can  make  the  determinations  and  either  have  them  on 
their  way  as  legal  citizens  or  on  their  way  out  because  they  are  not 
here  legally — one  or  the  other.  But  we  shouldn't  just  count  on  a 
system  that  doesn't  work  to  see  our  goals  reached. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  Thank  you  for  commenting  on  it. 

I  think  the  point  he's  making— and  I'd  like  to  emphasize  with 
the  chairman— is  that  while  what  we're  doing  in  this  bill  is  a  vast 
improvement  over  the  procedures  used  internally  or  externally  by 
the  processes  involved,  the  Federal  district  courts  are  really  bot- 
tling things  up  and  will  continue  to  do  that  far  in  excess  of  what 
the  general  public  perhaps  perceives. 

Thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  appreciate  that. 

Dan,  thank  you  for  your  testimony. 

Our  next  witness  is  our  distinguished  colleague  from  Texas, 
Mickey  Leland.  We  welcome  him.  Congressman  Leland,  your  state- 
ment is  made  a  part  of  the  record,  but  you  may  read  it  or  proceed 
however  you  wish.  Thank  you  for  your  patience. 


192 

TESTIMONY  OF  HON.  MICKEY  LELAND,  REPRESENTATIVE  FROM 
THE  18TH  DISTRICT  OF  THE  STATE  OF  TEXAS 

Mr.  Leland.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  your  col- 
leagues on  the  subcommittee  for  this  opportunity  to  appear  before 
you  and  renew  the  debate  on  immigration. 

Above  all,  1  would  like  to  express  my  sincere  appreciation  to  the 
chairman  for  his  fair  and  evenhanded  direction  of  the  debate 
during  the  last  session  of  Congress,  and  for  his  openness  to  the 
views  of  his  opponents.  I've  been  one  of  them. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you  very  much.  1  would  say  to  the  gentle- 
man that  his  participation  in  the  debate  was  excellent.  I  think  the 
gentleman  and  I  would  agree  that  despite  the  awkward  hours  as- 
signed for  the  debate,  we  gave  the  Congress  and  the  people  who 
watched  it  a  lesson  in  what  history  is  really  all  about — the  living 
history  of  people  having  come  to  this  country,  the  various  means 
they  get  here,  and  what  they  contribute  when  they  are  here. 

1  thank  the  gentleman  for  having  participated. 

Mr.  Leland.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

I  would  also  like  to  commend  the  chairman  and  the  members  of 
the  subcommittee  for  their  tireless  work  over  several  years  to  pre- 
sent the  Congress  with  a  vehicle  for  considering  immigration 
reform.  There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  necessity  of  such  reform. 
However,  Mr.  Chairman,  as  I  said  repeatedly  in  the  last  session,  I 
am  deeply  troubled  by  many  of  the  provisions  of  this  bill. 

Please  understand  that  these  objections  are  grounded  in  first- 
hand experience — my  district,  by  the  way,  probably  has  more  undo- 
cumented workers  residing  there,  or  as  many,  at  least,  as  any  dis- 
trict in  the  country — and  that  of  my  constituents,  in  a  State  as  di- 
rectly affected  by  immigration  as  any.  My  State  has  very  serious 
and  complicated  problems  of  immigration  of  people  who  want  to 
work  for  various  and  sundry  reasons. 

I  am  primarily  concerned  with  four  major  provisions  of  this  legis- 
lation: the  proposed  methods  of  controlling  illegal  immigration, 
principally  employer  sanctions;  legalization;  adjudication  proce- 
dures and  asylum;  and  foreign  policy  considerations. 

For  the  sake  of  brevity,  and  because  my  concerns  were  extensive- 
ly recorded  in  last  year's  debate,  allow  me  to  summarize  my  con- 
cerns. There  are  a  number  of  related  points  which  I  would  like  to 
discuss  with  you  at  a  later  time. 

First,  I  believe  that  employer  sanctions,  as  a  means  of  controlling 
illegal  immigration,  represent  a  real  danger  of  deeper  discrimina- 
tion against  those  who  look  foreign,  if  you  will.  This  concern  has 
been  eloquently  and  persuasively  argued  by  a  number  of  national 
Hispanic  organizations. 

Let  me  argue,  too,  that  even  the  consideration  of  the  Haitian 
problem  is  one  within  the  realm  of  this  same  issue. 

Their  fear  is  deeply  rooted  in  the  day-to-day  experiences  of  mi- 
norities in  border  States  such  as  my  State,  Texas.  Employer  sanc- 
tions will  be  applied  in  an  environment  in  which  adequate  staffing 
and  resources  for  enforcement  are  lacking,  law  enforcement  is  very 
often  arbitrary  and  abusive,  and  quick  redress  of  civil  rights  viola- 
tions is  difficult  to  obtain. 


193 

Having  grown  up  in  the  South,  having  grown  up  in  Texas, 
having  grown  up  in  Houston,  having  grown  up  in  the  fifth  ward  in 
Houston,  Tex.,  let  me  assure  you  that  enforcement  of  the  law  has 
been  a  very  severe  and  serious  problem.  From  my  perspective, 
being  a  black  person,  I  know  that  very  well. 

As  an  example  of  the  latter,  I  would  cite  a  case  of  civil  rights 
violations  which  occurred  in  the  course  of  a  surprise  inspection  in 
1979.  That  case  has  only  now  come  to  trial  in  Lufkin,  Tex.  It  has 
taken  3  years,  Mr.  Chairman.  In  such  an  environment,  new  en- 
forcement responsibilities  will  most  likely  encourage  the  existing 
tendency  to  choose  the  path  of  least  resistance  and  resort  to  crack- 
downs such  as  Operation  Jobs,  which  was  carried  out  in  a  blatantly 
discriminatory  and  abusive  manner. 

Let  me  say  there  was  one  radio  station  in  Houston  that  during 
the  course  of  Operation  Jobs  advertised  for  those  people  who  were 
of  Salvadoran  descent  to  come  to  that  radio  station  to  get  some  job 
opportunity.  And  as  they  proceeded  to  get  to  the  station,  they  were 
arrested  and  deported — a  scurrilous  way  of  appealing  to  the  sensi- 
tivities of  human  beings.  That  is  only  one  small  example. 

At  best,  employer  sanctions,  with  provision  for  a  secure  verifica- 
tion system,  would  only  work  if  mechanisms  to  prevent  discrimina- 
tion and  guarantee  quick  redress  are  increased  and  strengthened. 
At  worst,  it  can  be  credibly  argued  that  at  this  point  in  time,  ern- 
ployer  sanctions  will  create  problems  more  serious  than  those  it  is 
intended  to  address. 

Second,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  commend  the  subcommittee's  decision 
to  include  a  program  of  legalization  and  amnesty — or  should  I  just 
say  legalization. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  We  are  raising  consciousness  around  this  place. 

Mr.  Leland.  Coming  from  the  fifth  ward  in  Houston,  Tex.,  my 
vocabulary  is  not  that  expansive  and  you  are  educating  me  on  a 
daily  basis. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  It  is  as  expansive  as  it  needs  to  be. 

Mr.  Smith.  Watch  out. 

Mr.  Leland.  Still,  I  must  voice  certain  concerns.  I  feel  that  this 
program  would  be  fairer  and  more  successful  if  we  were  to  shorten 
the  required  time  of  continuous  residence  in  the  U.S.  and  eliminate 
the  second-tier  temporary  residence.  This  latter  designation  does 
not  give  aliens — I  am  very  reserved  about  using  that  term.  If  I 
might  educate  you  a  minute,  from  my  perspective,  every  time  I 
think  about  aliens  I  think  about  "Star  Wars"  and  so  on.  What  was 
that  famous  movie? 

Mr.  Smith.  "E.T." 

Mr.  Leland.  No,  not  "E.T."  There  was  one  a  long  time  ago— 
"War  of  the  Worlds."  I  think  about  aliens  coming  in. 

This  latter  designation  does  not  give  those  people,  the  people  we 
address  "the  aliens,"  any  certainty  that  they  will  not  ultimately  be 
deported.  Because  of  this,  it  is  not  clear  that  undocumented  work- 
ers would  choose  this  option  over  the  more  certain  protection  of 
anonymity. 

This  second-tier  temporary  residence  is  also  troubling  in  that  it 
would  tend  to  create  a  large  group  of  so-called  aliens  outside  the 
mainstream  of  our  society,  a  point  made  by  then-Secretary  of 
Labor,  Ray  Marshall,  in  1977.  This  point  is  made  all  the  more  trou- 


194 

bling  if  we  add  to  it  the  impact  of  denying  full  social  benefits  and 
assistance  to  the  newly  legalized  workers  and  their  children.  Con- 
sidering the  economic  and  social  contributions  made  by  these  indi- 
viduals, denial  of  benefits  strikes  me  as  unnecessarily  punitive  and, 
in  the  long  term,  unwise.  .     ,     , 

It  is  also  not  clear,  Mr.  Chairman,  precisely  how  many  workers 
or  undocumented  people  would  either  qualify  for  or  avail  them- 
selves of  the  legalization  provisions  of  earlier  legislation,  estimated 
that  the  response  would  be  about  20  percent.  If  we  are  serious 
about  resolving  the  problem  of  undocumented  workers,  we  must  be 
able  to  reach  a  significantly  larger  number. 

Third,  in  the  provisions  regarding  asylum  and  judicial  review  I 
see  a  more  fundamental  problem.  The  establishment  of  an  inde- 
pendent U.S.  Immigration  Board  is  an  important  and  laudable 
step.  However,  the  attempt  to  streamline  and  speed  up  procedures 
by  increasing  the  arbitrary  power  of  immigration  officials  and  the 
Attorney  General,  facilitating  summary  exclusion,  curtailing  judi- 
cial review,  and  unreasonably  shortening  the  time  period  for  pre- 
senting appeals,  seems  to  me  a  wrong  solution  and  a  dangerous 
precedent.  I  do  not  think  we  should  sacrifice  basic  due  process  and 
equity  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution  for  the  sake  of  expediency. 

Finally,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  believe  that  the  immigration  policy 
cannot  and  should  not  be  divorced  from  foreign  policy  consider- 
ations. In  practical  terms,  we  will  not  resolve  our  immigration 
problems  through  unilateral  decisions,  disregarding  the  needs  and 
concerns  of  neighbors  such  as  Mexico.  I  would  like  to  draw  your 
attention  once  again  to  the  plea  of  our  colleagues  in  the  Mexican 
Senate  last  December.  The  Mexican  Senate,  pointing  to  the  reper- 
cussions within  Mexico,  and  the  effect  of  bilateral  relations,  of  pas- 
sage of  the  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill,  asked  for  extensive  bilateral  and 
multilateral  consultations.  It  is  important  that  we  heed  this  plea. 

The  development  of  an  immigration  policy  in  consultation  with 
our  neighbors  who  will  be  affected  by  it  does  not  constitute  an  ab- 
dication of  our  responsibility  to  the  American  people.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  would  be  a  necessary  recognition  of  our  complex 
interdependence  with  our  neighbors  and  an  attempt  to  deal  with 
immigration  problems  at  their  root. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  believe  I  have  told  you  today  those  things  that 
reflect  the  real  concerns  of  my  constituents  in  Texas  and  the  expe- 
rience of  all  the  minorities  in  Texas.  I  am  at  present  consulting 
with  immigration  attorneys  and  community  organizations  in  my 
district  and  through  Texas  to  receive  their  specific  views  on  the  im- 
migration bill.  I  would  like  to  share  their  views  with  you  in  the 
near  future. 

Again,  I  thank  you  for  the  opportunity  to  appear  before  this  sub- 
committee, and  I  hope  that  we  can  reach  some  reasonable  result. 
[The  complete  statement  follows:] 

Remarks  by  Congressman  Mickey  Leland 

I  want  to  thank  the  chairman  and  the  subcomittee  for  this  opportunity  to  appear 
before  you  and  renew  the  debate  on  immigration  reform.  Above  all,  I  would  like  to 
express  my  sincere  appreciation  to  the  chairman  for  his  fair  and  evenhanded  direc- 
tion of  the  debate  during  the  last  session  of  Congress,  and  for  his  openness  to  the 
views  of  his  opponents. 


195 

It  is  my  hope  that  through  discussions  at  this  early  stage — today  and  in  the 
coming  weeks — we  will  be  able  to  find  common  ground  and  resolve  some  of  our  dif- 
ferences. I  took  no  pleasure  from  being  on  the  opposite  side  from  my  respected 
friend,  the  chairman  of  the  subcommittee,  in  the  last  session. 

I  would  also  like  to  commend  the  chairman  and  the  members  of  the  subcommittee 
for  their  tireless  work  over  several  years  to  present  the  Congress  with  a  vehicle  for 
considering  immigration  reform.  There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  necessity  of  such 
reform.  However,  as  I  said  repeatedly  in  the  last  session,  I  am  deeply  troubled  by 
many  of  the  provisions  of  this  bill.  Please  understand  that  these  objections  are 
grounded  in  first-hand  experience — mine,  and  that  of  my  constituents — in  a  State  as 
directly  affected  by  immigration  as  any. 

I  am  primarily  concerned  with  four  major  provisions  of  this  legislation:  The  pro- 
posed methods  of  controlling  illegal  immigration,  principally  employer  sanctions;  le- 
galization; adjudication  procedures  and  asylum;  and  foreign  policy  considerations. 

For  the  sake  of  brevity  and  because  my  concerns  were  extensively  recorded  in  last 
year's  debate,  allow  me  to  summarize  my  concerns.  There  are  a  number  of  related 
points  which  I  would  like  to  discuss  with  you  at  a  later  time. 

First,  I  believe  that  employer  sanctions,  as  a  means  of  controlling  illegal  immigra- 
tion, represent  a  real  danger  of  deeper  discrimination  against  those  who  look  for- 
eign, if  you  will.  This  concern  has  been  eloquently  and  persuasively  argued  by  a 
number  of  national  Hispanic  organizations.  Their  fear  is  deeply  rooted  in  the  day-to- 
day experiences  of  minorities  in  border  States  such  as  Texas.  Employer  sanctions 
will  be  applied  in  an  environment  in  which  adequate  staffing  and  resources  for  en- 
forcement are  lacking,  law  enforcement  is  very  often  arbitrary  and  abusive,  and 
quick  redress  of  civil  rights  violations  is  difficult  to  obtain. 

As  an  example  of  the  latter,  I  would  cite  a  case  of  civil  rights  violations  which 
occurred  in  the  course  of  a  "surprise  inspection"  in  1979.  That  case  has  only  now 
come  to  trial  in  Lufkin,  Tex.  It  has  taken  3  years.  In  such  an  environment,  new 
enforcement  responsibilities  will  most  likely  encourage  the  existing  tendency  to 
"choose  the  path  of  least  resistance"  and  resort  to  crackdowns  such  as  "operation 
jobs,"  which  was  carried  out  in  a  blatantly  discriminatory  and  abusive  manner. 

At  best,  employer  sanctions — with  provisions  for  a  "secure  verification  system" — 
would  only  work  if  mechanisms  to  prevent  discrimination  and  guarantee  quick  re- 
dress are  increased  and  strengthened.  At  worst,  it  can  be  credibly  argued  that  at 
this  point  in  time,  employer  sanctions  will  create  problems  more  serious  than  those 
it  is  intended  to  address. 

Second,  I  commend  the  subcommittee's  decision  to  include  a  program  of  legaliza- 
tion and  amnesty.  Still,  I  must  voice  certain  concerns.  I  feel  that  this  program 
would  be  fairer  and  more  successful  if  we  were  to  shorten  the  required  time  of  con- 
tinuous residence  in  the  United  States  and  eliminate  the  section-tier  "temporary 
residence."  This  latter  designation  does  not  give  aliens  any  certainty  that  they  will 
not  ultimately  be  deported.  Because  of  this,  it  is  not  clear  that  undocumented  aliens 
would  choose  this  option  over  the  more  certain  protection  of  anonymity. 

This  second-tier  temporary  residence  is  also  troubling  in  that  it  would  tend  to 
create  a  large  group  of  aliens  outside  the  mainstream  of  society,  a  point  made  by 
then-Secretary  of  Labor,  Ray  Marshall,  in  1977.  This  point  is  made  all  the  more 
troubling  if  we  added  to  it  the  impact  of  denying  full  social  benefits  and  assistance 
to  the  newly-legalized  aliens  and  their  children.  Considering  the  economic  and  social 
contributions  made  by  these  individuals,  denial  of  benefits  strikes  me  as  unnecessar- 
ily punitive  and,  in  the  long  term,  unwise. 

It  is  also  not  clear  precisely  how  many  aliens  would  either  qualify  for  or  avail 
themselves  of  the  legalization  provisions.  The  Carter  administration,  in  analyzing 
similar  provisions  of  earlier  legislation,  estimated  that  the  response  would  be  about 
20  percent.  If  we  are  serious  about  resolving  the  problem  of  undocumented  workers, 
we  must  be  able  to  reach  a  significantly  larger  number. 

Third,  in  the  provisions  regarding  asylum  and  judicial  review,  I  see  a  more  funda- 
mental problem.  The  establishment  of  an  independent  U.S.  Immigration  Board  is  an 
important  and  laudable  step.  However,  the  attempt  to  streamline  and  speed  up  pro- 
cedures by  increasing  the  arbitrary  power  of  immigration  officials  and  the  Attorney 
General,  facilitating  summary  exclusion,  curtailing  judicial  review,  and  unreason- 
ably shortening  the  time  period  for  presenting  appeals,  seems  to  me  a  wrong  solu- 
tion and  a  dangerous  precedent.  I  do  not  think  we  should  sacrifice  basic  due  process 
and  equity  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution  for  the  sake  of  expediency. 

Finally,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  believe  that  immigration  policy  cannot  and  should  not 
be  divorced  from  foreign  policy  considerations.  In  practical  terms,  we  will  not  re- 
solve our  immigration  problems  through  unilateral  decisions,  disregarding  the  needs 
and  concerns  of  neighbors  such  as  Mexico.  I  would  like  to  draw  your  attention  once 


196 

again  to  the  plea  of  our  colleagues  in  the  Mexican  Senate  last  December.  The  Mexi- 
can Senate,  pointing  to  the  repercussions  within  Mexico,  and  the  effect  on  bilateral 
relations,  of  passage  of  the  Simpson-Mazzoli  bill,  asked  for  extensive  bilateral  and 
multilateral  consultations.  It  is  important  that  we  heed  this  plea. 

The  development  of  an  immigration  policy  in  consultation  with  our  neighbors  who 
will  be  affected  by  it  does  not  constitute  an  abdication  of  our  responsibility  to  the 
American  people.  On  the  contrary,  it  would  be  a  necessary  recognition  of  our  com- 
plex interdependence  with  our  neighbors  and  an  attempt  to  deal  with  immigration 
problems  at  their  root. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  believe  that  what  I  have  told  you  today  reflects  the  real  concerns 
of  my  constituents  in  Texas  and  the  experience  of  minorities  in  Texas.  I  am  at 
present  consulting  with  immigration  attorneys  and  community  organizations  in  my 
district  and  throughout  Texas,  to  receive  their  specific  views  on  the  immigration 
bill.  I  would  like  to  share  their  views  with  you  in  the  near  future. 

Again,  I  thank  you  for  the  opportunity  to  appear  before  the  committee  and  I  hope 
that  we  will  be  able  to  continue  these  discussions. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Well,  Mr.  Congressman,  thank  you  very  much  for 
your  help.  You  have  been  cogent  and  you  have  been  on  target  on 
the  controversial  elements  of  our  bill. 

Let  me  yield  myself  5  minutes,  and  then  I  will  let  my  colleague 
from  Florida,  Mr.  Smith,  get  into  the  question  of  due  process.  Yes- 
terday he  had  a  very  interesting  discussion  with  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral on  administrative  due  process  and  judicial  due  process  on  the 
question  of  asylum. 

I  certainly  want  to  cooperate  with  our  neighbor  to  the  south  and 
our  neighbor  to  the  north  and  all  of  our  neighbors  in  the  whole 
hemisphere.  But  I  really  do  not  think  we  can  draft  a  bill  solely  on 
what  they  think  is  the  way  we  ought  to  go. 

In  our  bill,  at  the  insistence  of  the  gentleman  from  California, 
Mr.  Lungren,  is  a  provision  which  sets  up  a  commission  between 
Mexico  and  the  United  States  to  discuss  a  lot  of  things— not  just 
immigration.  We  have  problems  galore  that  we  will  be  talking 
about  for  years  to  come.  So  in  our  bill  we  try  to  make  the  first  ten- 
tative steps  toward  a  consultation.  But  I,  for  one,  think  it  would  be 
not  correct  for  us  to  consult  directly  with  them  about  precisely 
what  is  in  the  bill.  We  have  some  idea  from  them  in  writings  of 
Mexican  scholars  of  what  the  general  lay  of  the  land  is,  and  we 
certainly  take  those  into  consideration.  I  have  met  with  Mexican 
officials  in  Mexico  City  and  in  Washington. 

Mickey,  you  mentioned  the  20  percent  factor  for  legislation — and 
that's  about  what  we  get  from  other  witnesses.  Twenty  percent 
might  respond. 

In  our  bill  we  make  an  effort  to  have  a  storefront  outreach,  as 
you  know.  We  try  to  get  to  the  people  who  would  qualify  for  the 
program.  We  also  put  an  insulator,  a  kind  of  intervening  element, 
between  the  individuals  and  the  INS  by  having  these  voluntary 
agencies — church  groups,  ethnic  groups — make  the  first  contact 
with  the  people  so  that  the  people  would  feel  they  were  not  vulner- 
able. They  can  come  in  and  talk  to  a  person  who  is  not  going  to 
bust  them  if  their  papers  are  not  in  order. 

So  we  are  hoping  to  build  that  20  percent  up. 

I  said  yesterday  at  the  hearing  that  the  GAO  reports  that 
Canada  had  about  a  20  or  30  percent  response;  France  has  had  a 
fairly  low  response  to  its  amnesties  and  legalization  programs  in 
the  past.  So  it  is  hard  to  say  just  how  far  we  can  build  that  number 
up. 


197 

You  make  mention  that  certain  activities  in  the  enforcement 
area  have  been  less  than  sensitive  and  sometimes  have  been  found 
by  the  courts  to  have  been  overreaching  and  legally  sanctionable. 
The  question  I  would  ask  is:  If  we  do  not  pass  a  bill  that  has  com- 
ponent parts  which  tend  to  solve  the  problem,  aren't  we  simply 
condemning  to  the  future  what  we  have  today,  which  is  periodic 
enforcements,  kind  of  a  cyclical  flow  of  this  activity?  Would  not 
what  we  suggest  here  be  attractive  because  it  might  fmesse  some  of 
the  very  same  problems  that  you  legitimately  point  out  in  your 
statement? 

Mr.  Leland.  Mr.  Chairman,  let  me  respond  by  saymg  that  I  am 
fearful  that  if  we  provide  more  sanctions  in  that  way,  indeed  what 
we  are  going  to  find  is  a  multiple  response,  that  we  realize  in 
Texas  in  particular,  where  we  find  that  law  enforcement  officers 
are  terribly  abusive,  particularly  those  who  have  not  dealt  with 
this  problem  on  a  daily  basis. 

And  so  I  am  very  fearful  about  the  violation  of  human  rights  and 
human  dignity,  for  that  matter,  by  those  law  enforcement  agents 
who  would  be  given  authority  to  go  forward  to  execute  what  it  is 
that  you  desire. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you.  I  appreciate  that.  Thank  you  for  takmg 
the  time  to  join  us. 

Mr.  Leland.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  might,  I'd  like  to  also  respond  on 
another  point  you  raised. 
Mr.  Mazzoli.  Certainly. 

Mr.  Leland.  It  had  to  do  with  dealing  with  our  neighbors  to  the 
south  of  us  in  Mexico,  and  other  neighbors,  for  that  matter,  who 
would  be  affected  by  what  we  do. 

Let  me  beg  to  differ  with  you  on  the  issue  of  how  we  relate  or 
communicate  with  them. 

I  think  when  we  raise  a  question  as  serious  as  the  immigration 
policy  that  we  raise  today,  the  serious  foreign  policy  implications 
that  I  see  raised  here  are  terribly,  terribly  important  to  not  only  us 
but  also  to  our  neighbors.  And  if,  in  fact,  we  were  to  pass  an  immi- 
gration policy  without  true  consultation,  without  bilateral  consider- 
ation—and not  necesarily  having  them  dictate  to  us  what  it  is  that 
we  should  pass  as  a  nation,  but  rather  considering  their  attitudes 
and  the  issues  that  they  see  raised  by  the  passage  of  this  kind  of 
legislation,  it  seems  to  me  we  ought  to  engage  in  a  very  serious  dis- 
cussion on  these  matters. 

And  while  I  again  feel  very  strongly  that  indeed  we  need  to  de- 
velop policy  ourselves  that  relate  to  us,  this  is  a  very  small  world 
today.  And  Mexico  being  our  neighbor  has  been  juxtaposed  to  us 
for  various  and  sundry  reasons,  and  God  knows  that  a  lot  of  those 
reasons  were  because  of  the  prejudices  that  we  held  as  a  nation 
toward  them  for  as  long  as  we  have  been  in  existence. 

I  think  that  today  we  are  at  a  very  sensitive  time  in  developing  a 
friendly  relationship  with  Mexico  and  other  nations  with  which  we 
have  similar  problems.  And  we  ought  to  consider  whether  or  not 
we  are  going  to  further  damage  any  opportunity  for  us  to  reach  out 
to  our  neighbors  and  say,  "We  want  to  work  with  you."  And  that  is 
the  concern  I  raised  about  foreign  policy  implications. 

Mr.  Mazzoll  Thank  you  very  much,  Mickey.  Certainly  it  is  not 
out  of  our  thinking  for  1  second.  The  question  is  just  how  to  go 


198 

about  doing  it  since  we  are  a  sovereign  nation  and  we  have  to 
make  judgments  about  what  is  best  for  the  United  States.  Never- 
theless, when  you  have  a  neighbor  as  big  as  Mexico  nearby  with  its 
problems,  we  certainly  cannot  ignore  them. 

The  gentleman  from  Texas. 

Mr.  Hall.  I  have  no  questions. 

Mr.  Mazzoll  The  gentleman  from  Florida,  Mr.  Smith. 

Mr.  Smith.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Leland,  first  of  all  let  me  commend  you  for  picking  out  those 
areas  that  are  obviously  of  major  concern  to  most  people  and  high- 
lighting and  focusing  on  those. 

I'd  also  commend  you  for  your  relation  of  the  foreign  policy  issue 
to  the  whole  question  because  there  is  no  doubt  that  this  is  one  of 
the  overriding  issues  creating  this  whole  problem.  Foreign  policy  in 
terms  of  our  economic  policies  in  South  America,  for  instance — 
Latin  America,  South  America,  the  Caribbean — have  created  a  mi- 
gration over  the  years  in  Mexico,  created  these  migrations  to  the 
United  States.  We  really  have  to  look  at  those  in  terms  of  a  coordi- 
nated effort  to  finally  get  some  handle  on  all  of  this. 

Because  no  matter  what  we  put  on  the  printed  page,  until  we 
solve  the  root  cause  of  the  problem,  all  we  are  doing  is  really,  after 
the  horse  is  out,  trying  to  lock  the  barn  door.  We  are  never  getting 
to  the  point  of  trying  to  keep  the  horse  in  the  barn  to  begin  with 
by  making  it  more  attractive  for  people  because  there  are  opportu- 
nities in  their  own  home  country  to  earn  what  they  can  earn  in  the 
United  States. 

The  problem,  however,  relates  to  some  of  the  issues  as  to  what 
we  need  to  do  at  least  as  a  first  step  here  because  the  Judiciary 
Committee  doesn't  have  foreign  affairs  jurisdiction,  although  I  sit 
on  Foreign  Affairs  and  it's  almost  as  difficult  up  there  to  believe 
we  have  foreign  affairs  jurisdiction. 

On  the  question  of  sanctions — and  I  share  your  concerns  about 
those.  Even  before  I  was  elected  I  came  in  thinking  that  there  were 
some  major  problems  with  the  area  of  sanctions.  But  just  on  a  hy- 
pothetical basis,  suppose  there  were  the  dollars  and  the  enforce- 
ment mode — setting  aside  local  law  enforcement  for  the  time 
being — if  they  were  provided  and  they  weren't  lacking,  do  you  feel 
that  sanctions  would  then  be  appropriate,  that  you  could  do  a  good 
job  of  what  you  intend  to  do  with  sanctions,  and  that  is  really  deter 
rather  than  punish  employers? 

Mr.  Leland.  I  don't  think  so. 

Mr.  Smith.  What  would  you  suggest  instead? 

Mr.  Leland.  I'm  not  really  sure,  Mr.  Smith.  I  wish  I  had  the 
answer  to  that.  And  that  is  why  it's  hard  to  argue  against  the 
policy  that's  being  involved  when  in  fact  you  don't  have  an  alterna- 
tive. I  just  feel  in  the  whole  area  of  providing  some  kind  of  deter- 
rence for  undocumenteds  coming  across  the  border,  we  need  to  do 
something.  It's  esoteric  to  a  lot  of  people  but  it's  clear  and  simple 
in  my  mind.  And  that  is  we  need  to  develop  better  relationships 
with  those  countries,  provide  resources  to  help  them  to  industrial- 
ize, to  help  them  to  provide  better  job  opportunities  for  their 
people,  the  people  who  would  come  here  for  those  very  things. 

That  to  me  is  the  real  answer,  as  opposed  to  providing  for  these 
so-called  stopgap  measures. 


199 

I  realize  something  has  to  be  done,  and  I  know  that  the  people 
here,  particularly  on  this  committee,  are  very  sincere  about  devel- 
oping an  instrument  by  which  we  can  resolve  the  problem  that  af- 
flicts our  country  so  much.  But  at  the  same  time,  I  think  if  we,  as  I 
do,  regard  the  human  rights  of  people,  regardless  of  what  country 
they  come  from,  we  must  go  beyond  ourselves,  our  own  reach,  in 
order  that  we  resolve  these  problems. 

We  think  of  undocumented  problems  as  being— you  have  been 
more  involved  in  this,  but  most  people  think  in  this  country  that 
we're  talking  about  people  who  come  from  Mexico. 

Look  at  Haiti.  There  is  a  terribly  oppressive  regime  that  runs 
that  country.  People  take  all  kinds  of  precarious  steps  to  get  from 
Haiti  to  this  country,  to  eke  out  a  living  for  their  families,  to  seek 
refuge,  to  save  their  lives  in  many,  many  instances,  and  from  in- 
carceration. 

I  think  in  terms  of  the  leverage  we  have  on  Haiti— for  mstance, 
if  we  were  to  make  a  foreign  policy  consideration,  we  would  use 
our  leverage  with  Haiti,  maybe  Dr.  Duvalier,  to  do  what  we  can  to 
assure  that  that  at  least  that  country— not  to  dictate  to  them  what 
they  ought  to  be  doing,  but  at  least  to  use  the  power  of  sanctions 
against  the  country,  as  we  do  in  Cuba  and  as  we  do  in  other  parts 
of  the  world  for  that  matter,  in  order  that  we  can  help  them,  not 
only  in  terms  of  them  imposing  human  rights  standards  in  that 
country,  but  also  to  provide  resources  for  them  to  develop  job  op- 
portunities for  the  people  so  they  can  work  and  develop  a  comfort- 
able living  for  themselves,  their  families,  and  everything  else. 

Mr.  Smith.  I  couldn't  agree  with  you  more,  because  I  feel  exactly 
the  same  way  as  you  on  that  point. 

But  let  me  take  the  converse  and  take  the  side  that  you  are  now 
arguing  and  see  if  I  can't  throw  it  back  the  other  way. 

With  reference  to,  rather  than  legalization  with  the  tiered  struc- 
ture that  is  in  the  bill  before  us,  advancing  the  date  like  you  want 
to  do  or  removing  the  two  dates,  don't  you  think  that's  going  to 
have  the  converse  effect  by  in  fact  promoting  more  people  to  come 
here,  seeing  if  they  can  struggle  in  under  that  advancing  date,  and 
not  have  a  two-tiered  system,  rather  than  promoting  them  to  stay 
in  their  own  country  even  if  we  were  going  to  make  some  of  the 
civil  rights,  human  rights,  and  economic  advances  in  those  foreign 
countries? 

Mr.  Leland.  I  realize  how  very  sophisticated  we  are  today,  but 
think  about  it:  that  two-tiered  system  was  in  existence,  in  fact, 
when  the  Europeans  came  over  here  and  established  themselves  as 
citizens,  imposed  themselves  on  organized  society,  called  the  Native 
American  tribunals  or  whatever.  But  I  am  concerned  about  how  it 
is  that  we  further  defer  opportunities  for  people  to  be  legalized,  so 
to  speak,  and  to  come  to  this  country.  Sure,  it  will.  It  will  send  a 
signal  that  in  fact  more  people  are  to  come  here.  But  at  the  same 
time,  we  have  certain  controls  that  would  disallow  that. 

I  suggest  that  the  people  who  come  here  illegally  today,  consider- 
ing the  conditions  that  exist  today— are  not  going  to  stop  coming 
whether  we  establish  this  law  or  not.  The  fact  is  that  there  are  il- 
legal aliens  or  illegal  workers  who  come  here  seeking  refuge  from 
problems  that  run  rampant  throughout  their  countries  for  what- 


200 

ever  reason,  and  this  land  has  promoted  the  fact  that  we  are  the 
best  and  the  strongest  and  we  have  the  most  to  offer. 

Thus,  for  as  long  as  this  country  is  as  strong  and  powerful  and 
affluent  as  it  is,  in  spite  of  the  problems  that  we  have,  people  are 
going  to  want  to  come  to  America.  And  I  would  hope  that  is  the 
case  whether  we  pass  a  bill  or  not. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  gentleman's  time  is  up. 

Mr.  Smith.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  gentleman  from  Florida  is  recognized  for  5 
minutes. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  Thank  you. 

I  think  the  experience  of  the  gentleman  from  Texas  in  describing 
the  situation  from  his  perspective  is  very  good  for  this  subcommit- 
tee to  hear.  I  am  curious  if  the  gentleman  has  any  suggestions 
about  the  mechanisms  to  prevent  discrimination  in  the  employer 
sanction  area  which  we  might  benefit  from.  I  know  you  alluded  to 
that  in  your  statement.  The  specific  language  I'm  quoting  back  to 
you.  But  I  am  very  interested  in  preventing  any  possibility  of  that, 
and  whether  you  have  them  today  or  down  the  road,  I  would  hope 
that  you'd  submit  them  to  the  subcommittee. 

Mr.  Leland.  I  certainly  will,  and  I  will  engage  in  conversations, 
as  I  have  in  the  past,  with  employers  of  undocumented  workers. 
And  I  have  talked  to  many  of  them.  I  have  many  of  them  in  my 
district.  There's  big  employers  and  small  employers  of  those  people. 

One  of  the  problems  with  these  kinds  of  sanctions  is,  of  course, 
the  inherent  prejudices  that  people  hold  against  foreigners. 

In  Texas  we  have  a  problem  with  particularly  Mexican  people 
who  come  as  undocumented  workers,  and  the  police  departments, 
the  policemen,  are  the  ones  who  tend  to  abuse — not  all  of  them, 
many  do  a  great  job.  But  many  of  these  people  are  inherently  for 
some  reason  prejudiced  against  people  who  are  foreigners  in  my 
district  in  particular.  Let  me  speak  to  my  district  in  particular. 

A  lot  of  policemen,  let  me  say,  in  recent  years,  have  learned  to 
lock  out  their  prejudices  when  they  go  to  serve  notice  on  people  for 
illegal  actions  one  way  or  another — blacks,  whites,  Hispanics,  or 
otherwise — thus  realizing  their  professional  responsibility  was  a  lot 
more  important  to  them  than  was  their  personal  considerations. 
And  I  applaud  them. 

But  the  problem  is  that  there  are  so  many  people  who  are  left  in 
this  world  who  are  prejuudiced  against  people  who  are  not  like 
them.  They  tend  to  continue  those  prejudices.  And  all  I'm  saying  is 
that  to  provide  this  kind  of  sanction  provides  even  further  discrimi- 
nation. We  have  not  solved  the  problem  of  discrimination  against 
Mexican  Americans,  blacks,  and  other  minorities  in  this  country. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  Would  you  prefer  if  we  did  some  enhancement  of 
the  enforcement  policies,  something  that  is  not  currently  in  this 
bill  but  that  might  be  considered  separately  or  as  an  amendment  to 
it,  that  we  use  expansion  of  the  current  immigration  officers, 
rather  than  somehow  delegating  powers  to  local  police  officers? 
Would  you  feel  the  expansion  of  the  immigration  officers  would  be 
better? 

Mr.  Leland.  I  would  think  very  much  so.  That  would  limit  the 
problem.  I'd  have  to  analyze  it  a  lot  more  deeply  than  I  can  at  this 
moment,  of  course.  But  very  definitely  I  would  very  much  like  the 


201 

committee,  and  you  for  that  matter,  to  seek  that  enhancement.  Be- 
cause I  think  the  immigration  officers,  who  have  been  so  accus- 
tomed to  deaUng  with  the  problem,  are  more  sensitive  than  are  the 
local  police  authorities  in  my  district  and  in  other  districts 
throughout  the  country. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  I  gather,  though,  that  as  of  today  you  do  not 
have  specifics  for  us  with  regard  to  employer  sanction  mechanisms. 

Mr.  Leland.  That's  right.  At  this  point,  given  not  the  alterna- 
tive, my  response  is  that  we  ought  not  to  do  it. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  If  I  could  interrupt  for  a  moment,  let  me  ask  this: 
Mickey,  it's  true  that  people  say,  "I  don't  like  the  legalization  sec- 
tion; let's  get  rid  of  that.  Let's  get  rid  of  employer  sanctions.  Let's 
get  rid  of  this  and  that."  And,  of  course,  you  reach  the  point  of  not 
having  a  bill  left.  And  if  you  have  no  bill  left,  get  no  bill,  then 
what  you  have  is  a  continuation  of  today's  situation,  which  from 
what  I  understand,  after  studying  the  thing  for  2  years,  is  exploita- 
tion, it's  abuse  of  people,  it's  denial  of  due  process  to  people,  it's  a 
failure  to  correct  some  of  the  most  outrageous  behavior  of  people 
toward  people.  That's  what  we  have  today. 

This  bill  has  symmetry  and  balance.  It's  been  studied  by  four  ad- 
ministrations. It  s  been  passed  on  by  the  Hesburgh  Commission.  All 
these  people,  people  smarter  than  Ron  Mazzoli,  say,  "Look,  this 
will  make  it  better." 

Why  don't  we  take  a  chance  to  make  something  better  than  con- 
demning the  hundreds  of  thousand  of  people  in  Houston,  Tex.  Ken- 
tucky, New  York,  and  the  country  to  the  fate  that  they  have 
today? 

Mr.  Leland.  Well,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  never  at  any  time  ques- 
tioned the  motives  of  the  gentleman  nor  the  people  who  have  made 
this  a  consideration  for  the  time  that  you  have  indicated.  My  prob- 
lem is  that  there  are  certain  problems  inherent  in  the  bill  that  are 
going  to  become  more  pronounced  in  the  State  of  Texas  where  I 
come  from,  and  I'm  sure  in  California,  and  other  places  where  the 
problem  is  rampant.  And  I  have  pointed  out  the  areas  of  my  con- 
cern. 

I  recognize  the  process  is  very  important,  the  process  of  your  con- 
sideration, the  process  of  the  consideration  of  the  objective  analysis 
of  members  of  Congress  and  how  they  vote  on  this  matter. 

Indeed,  our  debate,  if  you  have  it,  is  very  good,  and  hopefully 
something  will  come  out  of  this  Congress  that  is  refined  enough 
that  will  appeal  to  the  sensitivites  that  I  have  raised  and  also  the 
concerns  that  you  have  raised. 

I  realize  and  acknowledge  that  we  need  something  done.  It  is  just 
that  some  of  those  things  that  you  want  to  do  I  don't  want  you  to 

do. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you.  I  appreciate  it.  If  you  have  your  way, 

we  won't  do  it. 

The  gentleman  from  California  was  detained  for  a  moment.  The 
gentleman  is  recognized  for  5  minutes. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  I'm  sorry  I  wasn't  here  to  hear  your  testimony  but 
I  have  gone  through  most  of  it. 

One  of  the  questions  I  have  is  that  one  of  our  witnesses  yester- 
day suggested  that  if  it  could  possibly  be  done,  the  best  thing  we 
could  do,  because  of  the  disparity  of  economic  circumstances  that 


18-556    0—83 14 


202 

exist  between  ourselves  and  Mexico,  and  because  we  have  an  his- 
torical relationship  between  that  country  and  ourselves,  would  be 
to  have  an  open  border  type  of  situation. 

Would  you  support  moving  in  that  direction?  Would  you  think 
that  would  be  at  all  practical? 

Mr.  Leland.  Well,  that's  a  bit  much.  I'm  not  opposed  to  it. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  I'm  trying  to  get  your  thinking. 

Mr.  Leland.  I  don't  feel  strongly  about  it  because  I  realize  there 
has  to  be  some  control  between  the  borders.  But  I  would  suggest 
that  that  might  be  the  answer. 

However,  let  me  suggest— well,  it's  political  suicide  for  me  to  say 
that.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  I'm  not  asking  you  to  commit  hari-kari. 

Mr.  Leland.  But  I  have  done  it  so  many  times.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  We  could  keep  it  a  secret.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Mazzoll  We  could  make  it  off  the  record. 

Mr.  Leland.  The  situation  between  Mexico  and  the  United 
States  is  a  unique  situation,  as  you  know,  because  you're  from  Cali- 
fornia. You  know  as  well  as  I  do  that  something  needs  to  be  done 
bilaterally  between  our  countries.  Maybe  it's  not  the  immigration 
bill  that  will  address  this  problem,  but  I  still  raise  concerns  about 
the  foreign  policy  implications.  I  think  we  need  to  work  very  close- 
ly with  the  Mexican  Government  to  try  to  determine  exactly  how  it 
is  that  we  can  relate  to  one  another.  I  am  not  opposed  to  open  bor- 
ders between  Mexico  and  Texas. 

Mr.  Lungren.  One  of  the  things  I  tried  to  get  in  the  bill  was  a 
cooperative  effort  for  consultation  between  ourselves  and  Mexico. 
Because  of  the  problem  of  this  thing  going  off  to  other  comrnittees 
before  it  ever  gets  to  the  floor  we  have  a  rather  limited  version  in 
the  bill. 

Mr.  Leland.  I  like  the  provision.  It  was  explained  to  me  by  the 
chairman,  by  the  way. 

Mr.  Lungren.  Thank  you.  It  would  be  my  hope  that  on  the  floor 
we  could  expand  it  to  have  even  more  serious  consultation  required 
between  ourselves  and  Mexico  in  all  of  our  relations  as  it  applies  to 
immigration,  not  just  an  H-2  program  or  anything  else,  but  in  all 
our  relations  with  that  country.  Because  when  you  think  about  the 
bracero  program,  there  are  a  lot  of  obvious  problems  with  it,  but 
the  point  is  we  started  it  without  consulting  Mexico  and  we  ended 
it  without  consulting  Mexico,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  wonder  why 
they  think  perhaps  we  don't  view  them  as  partners  in  all  of  this. 

I  know  you  spoke  about  this  a  little  earlier  before  I  was  here,  but 
I'd  like  to  get  your  thinking  on  it.  In  terms  of  employer  sanctions— 
and  it  sort  of  rolls  into  a  question  that  was  asked  you  about  the 
legalization.  I  acknowledge  that  we  are  never  going  to  totally  con- 
trol our  borders.  I  happen  to  think  we  can  put  some  leverage  on  it, 
we  can  have  some  control. 

And  it  seems  to  many  of  us  that  one  of  the  keys  is  demagnetizing 
the  migration.  That  is,  the  greatest  attraction  is  jobs.  As  long  as 
the  United  States  has  its  position  of  economic  strength— and  we 
still  have  that,  despite  all  the  problems  we  have  now  vis-a-vis  the 
rest  of  the  world — people  are  going  to  be  drawn  here. 

So  that  being  the  case,  it  seemed  to  us  that  if  we  were  to  have 
some  control  over  it,  we  had  to  do  something  about  the  nexus  be- 


203 

tween  job  opportunity  and  someone  seeking  that  job.  And  that  is 
where  we  came  up  with  the  employer  sanctions. 

Now,  if  you  could  accept  this  hypothetical,  that  employer  sanc- 
tions should  be  part  of  a  total  package,  do  you  envision  some  specif- 
ics about  how  we  could  change  the  employer  sanction  provisions 
that  we  have  to  eliminate  the  possibilities  of  discrimination? 

Because  one  of  the  reasons  we  required  everybody  to  present 
their  credentials,  so  to  speak,  to  the  employer,  was  to  get  away 
from  the  discriminatory  aspect.  If  we  only  said  they  had  to  get  that 
from  those  people  who  they  assumed  to  be  or  were  questionably 
here  illegally,  obviously  they  are  going  to  pick  out  those  groups 
that  they  think  have  the  greatest  number  of  undocumented  aliens, 
the  Hispanic  groups  in  my  area.  So  that  could  lead  to  discrimina- 
tion. So  we  wanted  to  get  away  from  that.  And  that's  why  we  re- 
quired everyone  to  produce  those  documents. 

In  that  context,  are  there  some  specific  suggestions  of  how  we 
might  alter  what  we  have  presented? 

Mr.  Leland.  No.  As  I  explained  before,  it  is  just  the  problem  of 
inherent  discrimination.  People  are  people.  Maybe  I  shouldn't  say 
it— quiet  discrimination.  From  history,  we  know  people  love  their 
own  kind  and  they  tend  to  discriminate  against  or  they  at  least 
hold  prejudiced  views  against  people  who  are  of  different  colors, 
cultures,  et  cetera.  And  until  we  can  solve  that  problem,  I  don't 
think  you  can  really  solve  the  problem  except  in  the  area  of  profes- 
sionality,  as  in  the  police  area.  I  think  the  people  to  whom  we  give 
the  authority  to  serve  these  sanctions  have  to  hold  above  them 
their  professional  responsibility  as  opposed  to  their  personal  feel- 
ings in  many  instances.  , 

One  isolated  example  is  the  Mexican-American  citizen  who  can  t 
speak  English  who  goes  to  seek  employment,  and  he  is  considered 
as  a  person  of  very  few  needs  and  is  not  so  knowledgeable  about 
the  system  that  he  has  grown  up  in.  He  goes  to  an  employer  and 
asks  for  a  job,  and  the  employer  says,  "I  can't  give  you  a  job  be- 
cause you  don't  have  documentation  that  you  are  an  American  citi- 


zen " 


The  person  then  is  turned  away,  and  I'm  afraid  the  reason  the 
person  is  turned  away  is  because  the  employer  says,  "I  am  not 
going  to  get  into  trouble  by  hiring  an  undocumented  worker.  This 
guy  might  be  an  American  citizen  but  I'm  not  going  to  give  him  a 
job  because  he  might  not  be."  ^ 

So  I  am  concerned  about  that  kind  of  thing,  too.  But  I  don  t  have 
the  answers. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  gentleman's  time  has  expired. 

Thank  you  very  much.  Congressman,  for  your  testimony.  As  you 
said  earlier  in  your  statement,  you  will  be  consulting  with  your 
people  back  home  and  some  of  the  experts.  I'd  be  delighted  to  re- 
ceive whatever  information  you  can  develop. 

Mr.  Leland.  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I  may,  I'd  like  to  make  one  last 
statement.  I'd  like  to  say  in  my  district— and  this  is  for  the 
record— while  I  hold  these  views  to  be  my  views,  there  are  many 
blacks  and  Hispanics  in  my  district  who  feel  as  strongly  about  the 
passage  of  vour  legislation  as  you  do. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you.  I  appreciate  your  saying  that  because, 
frankly,  we  have  received  quite  a  lot  of  letters  from  people  who  feel 


204 

threatened.  And  maybe  they  incorrectly  perceive  the  situation,  but 
they  feel  very  strongly.  And  there  is  a  division. 

But  we  thank  you  very  much,  Mickey,  and  we  appreciate  your 
time. 

Mr.  Leland.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  gentleman  from  Nebraska,  our  next  witness, 
Congressman  Hal  Daub. 

Hal,  thank  you  for  coming.  And  your  statement  which  we  re- 
ceived in  a  timely  fashion  is  made  a  part  of  the  record.  You  may 
read  it,  speak  from  it,  whatever  is  your  pleasure. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HON.  HAL  DAUB,  REPRESENTATIVE  FROM  THE 
SECOND  DISTRICT  OF  THE  STATE  OF  NEBRASKA     . 

Mr.  Daub.  Thank  you  very  much.  It  is  a  privilege  to  be  here,  and 
I  want  to  state  I  enjoyed  very  much  just  being  here  this  morning 
and  listening  to  the  very  deep  dialog  with  this  committee  about  a 
very  special  subject. 

Having  been  an  immigration  lawyer  and  having  practiced  law  in 
this  field  extensively,  I  am  pleased  to  talk  with  you  a  little  bit 
about  several  things.  I  think  I  will  use  my  statement  as  a  reference 
point  and  it  won't  take  very  long. 

I  do  appreciate  the  opportunity  to  appear.  The  subcommittee  has 
done  a  lot  of  good  work  already,  and  I  want  to  share  with  you  my 
concern  over  a  matter  that  indeed  has  a  profound  impact  on  our 
country  and  all  Americans. 

Thanking  you,  first  of  all,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  the  months  and 
years  that  you  have  labored  to  achieve  a  meaningful  immigration 
reform,  you  are  to  be  commended.  I  think  we  need  a  bill,  and  I 
think  we  are  headed  in  the  right  direction.  Your  efforts  are  provid- 
ing this  leadership,  and  certainly  all  who  are  interested  in  it 
should  appreciate  the  opportunity  that  you  are  giving  us  for  care- 
ful consideration  and  debate  over  the  provisions  that  are  now  con- 
tained in  the  reintroduced  Immigration  Reform  and  Control  Act. 

Immigration,  both  legal  and  illegal,  has  profound  economic  and 
social  repercussions  on  our  society.  The  importance  of  thorough 
consideration  of  these  effects  cannot  be  overstated. 

Estimates  on  the  number  of  undocumented  aliens  currently  re- 
siding in  this  country  vary  widely.  The  administration  has  estimat- 
ed that  the  number  can  be  between  3  and  6  million,  although  many 
believe  that  number  could  be  as  high  as  10  to  12  million. 

Taking  a  conservative  figure  of  4.5  million  undocumented  aliens 
residing  in  the  United  States,  the  Department  of  Health  and 
Human  Services  estimated  in  December  1982  that  45  percent  of  il- 
legals—or roughly  2,025,000  aliens— presently  in  this  country  en- 
tered before  the  year  1980. 

Under  the  provisions  of  H.R.  1510,  eventual  permanent  resident 
status  could  be  granted  to  these  undocumented  aliens.  Those  enter- 
ing before  January  1,  1977,  could  apply  for  permanent  residence 
immediately,  with  those  entering  January  1,  1980,  being  eligible  for 
a  temporary  resident  status,  yet  eligible  for  permanent  status  after 
3  years. 

Of  the  2,025,000  undocumented  aliens  who  would  be  eligible  for 
amnesty,  30  percent,  or  1,350,000  of  these  individuals,  would  be  eli- 


205 

gible  for  temporary  residence,  with  the  balance  of  15  percent,  or 
675,000  aliens,  eligible  for  permanent  resident  status. 

Of  this  2,025,000  undocumented  aliens  who  would  qualify  under 
the  amnesty  program— Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  indicate  here  paren- 
thetically that  when  I  grew  up  as  a  boy,  pot  was  a  place  you  sat 
and  grass  was  something  you  cut.  And  I  appreciate  the  elevation  of 
awareness,  the  stimulation  of  use  of  words,  so  I  will  use  the  word 
"amnesty"  only  sparingly,  with  the  meaning  it  was  originally  m- 
tended  to  demonstrate. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you  very  much.  You  have  always  impressed 
me  as  a  quick  study.  [Laughter.] 

Mr.  Daub.  Well,  the  half-hour  I  spent  in  the  chair  over  here  was 
very  instructive. 

The  Department  of  Health  and  Human  Services  further  estimat- 
ed that  approximately  60  percent  of  these  aliens— that's  a  figure  of 
1,215,000— would  eventually  participate  in  the  legalization  program. 
I  changed  the  word.  Let  the  record  show  that. 

The  Congressional  Budget  Office  estimated  that  initial  depend- 
ence of  amnestied  aliens  upon  public  assistance  programs  would  be 
low.  However,  they  expect  this  rate  to  build  over  a  4-year  period  to 
match  the  rate  of  the  present  American  population.  Using  an  effec- 
tive date  of  October  1,  1983,  CBO  estimated  that  Federal  public  as- 
sistance costs  could  be  expected  to  equal  annually  $1,191  billion.  By 
1989  this  cost  is  predicted  to  rise  to  $1,895  billion  for  that  year.  So 
it's  almost  $2  billion.  . 

Mr.  Chairman,  today  the  Federal  Government  is  suffering  from 
an  overwhelming  deficit,  the  States  are  being  forced  to  make  up  for 
reductions  in  funding  for  many  public  assistance  programs,  and 
this  legislation  could  be  the  straw,  without  the  proper,  as  I  heard 
in  earlier  testimony,  contributions  or  provisions  that  would  break 
the  State's  back,  the  camel's  back. 

In  response  to  this  concern,  I  was  pleased  to  note  that  H.R.  1510 
included,  under  the  section  marked  302,  the  provision  to  update  the 
registry  date  of  current  law  from  June  30,  1948,  to  January  1,  1973. 

This  provision  encompasses  a  measure  which  I  introduced  during 
the  last  session  of  Congress,  and  I  believe  that  a  registry  date  of 
January  1,  1973,  will  allow  Members  of  the  House  an  opportunity 
for  compromise  which,  if  retained,  would  provide  a  more  realistic 
reform  of  immigration  law,  in  lieu  of  the  legalization  provisions  in 
the  proposal  now  before  us. 

In  addition  to  my  concerns  with  illegal  immigration,  I  have  con- 
cerns over  legal  immigration.  The  fifth  preference  category  for 
legal  immigrants  has  broad  implications  for  our  country,  particu- 
larly when  coupled  with  the  possiblity  of  amnesty  for  illegal  aliens. 

In  1979,  92,227  immigrants  were  adm.itted  under  the  fifth  prefer- 
ence category,  a  category  which  includes  brothers  and  sisters  of 
permanent  residents,  as  well  as  their  spouses  and  children.  This 
number  represented  over  one-third  of  all  immigrants  admitted 
during  that  year,  1979,  under  our  system  of  preferences  for  rela- 
tives of  permanent  residents,  according  to  the  Department  of  Jus- 
tice's 1979  Statistical  Yearbook. 

To  demonstrate  the  economic  impact  of  immigration,  let  me  refer 
to  a  study  presented  by  Mr.  David  Heer  at  the  annual  meeting  of 
the  Population  Association  of  America  on  April  29  to  May  1,  1982. 


206 

Mr.  Heer's  survey  included  unmarried  mothers  of  Mexican  origin 
with  one  or  more  United  States-born  children,  age  2  or  over,  who 
had  resided  in  the  United  States  for  12  months  during  the  year 

1979,  and  received  aid  to  families  with  dependent  children. 

This  study  found  that  18.36  percent  of  illegal  alien  mothers  re- 
ceived AFDC  benefits,  while  21.87  percent  of  legal  alien  mothers  in 
the  study  received  benefits.  Of  American-born  mothers  in  the 
study,  approximately  18.47  percent  received  benefits. 

The  study  suggested  that  the  rate  of  dependence  upon  public  as- 
sistance for  legal-immigrant  mothers  was  slightly  higher  than  the 
rate  of  dependence  for  United  States-born  single  mothers. 

Even  if  these  rates  reflect  little  difference,  the  figures  should  in- 
dicate to  us  that  our  public  assistance  costs  will  increase  in  propor- 
tion to  the  increase  in  our  legal-resident  alien  population. 

Combining  the  costs  for  public  assistance  to  legal  immigrants 
with  the  costs  of  public  assistance  to  aliens  granted  permanent 
residence  is  potentially  staggering. 

Mr.  Chairman,  my  experiences  with  immigration  law  in  Omaha, 
Neb.,  together  with  the  substantial  input  I  have  received  from  my 
constituents,  lead  me  to  believe  that  the  issue  of  immigration 
reform  must  be  thoroughly  debated.  I  remain  convinced  that  a 
great  many  Americans,  particularly  at  this  critical  time  in  our  Na- 
tion's history,  have  grave  reservations  over  liberalizing  our  immi- 
gration laws  in  the  manner  proposed  by  H.R.  1510. 

Finally,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  look  forward  to  working  with  you  in 
the  coming  months  to  achieve  meaningful  yet  realistic  immigration 
reform. 

Thank  you  very  much. 

[The  complete  statement  follows:] 

Testimony  of  Congressman  Hal  Daub  Before  Judiciary  Subcommittee  on 

Immigration 

Mr.  Chairman,  members  of  the  Subcommittee,  I  certainly  appreciate  being  given 
this  opportunity  to  appear  before  your  subcommittee  to  share  with  you  my  concern 
over  a  matter  which  could  have  a  profound  impact  upon  all  Americans. 

First  let  me  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  many  months  and  years  you  have  la- 
bored to  achieve  meaningful  immigration  reform  are  to  be  commended,  as  are  your 
efforts  to  provide  all  those  interested  with  the  opportunity  to  carefully  consider  and 
debate  the  provisions  included  in  the  Immigration  Reform  and  Control  Act. 

Immigration,  both  legal  and  illegal,  has  profound  economic  and  social  repercus- 
sions on  our  society.  The  importance  of  thorough  consideration  of  these  effects 
cannot  be  overstated. 

Estimates  on  the  number  of  undocumented  aliens  currently  residing  in  this  coun- 
try vary  widely:  the  Administration  has  estimated  that  number  to  be  between  3  and 
6  million,  although  many  believe  that  number  to  be  as  high  as  10  to  12  million. 

Taking  a  conservative  figure  of  4.5  million  undocumented  aliens  residing  in  the 
United  States,  the  Department  of  Health  and  Human  Services  estimated  in  Decem- 
ber 1982  that  45  percent  of  illegals  (or  roughly  2,025,000  aliens)  presently  in  this 
country  entered  before  1980. 

Under  the  provisions  of  H.R.  1510,  eventual  permanent  resident  status  could  be 
granted  to  these  undocumented  aliens.  Those  entering  before  January  1,  1977,  could 
apply  for  permanent  residence  immediately,  with  those  entering  before  January  1, 

1980,  eligible  for  temporary  resident  status,  yet  eligible  for  permanent  status  after  3 
years. 

Of  the  2,025,000  undocumented  aliens  who  would  be  eligible  for  amnesty,  30  per- 
cent (or  1,350,000)  of  these  individuals  would  be  eligible  for  temporary  residence, 
with  the  balance  of  15  percent  (or  675,000  aliens)  eligible  for  permanent  resident 
status. 


207 

Of  the  2,025,000  undocumented  aliens  who  would  qualify  under  the  amnesty  pro- 
gram, the  Department  of  Health  and  Human  Services  further  estimated  that  ap- 
proximately 60  percent  of  these  (or  1,215,000)  aliens  would  eventually  participate  in 
the  amnesty  program. 

The  Congressional  Budget  Office  estimated  that  initial  dependence  of  amnestied 
aliens  upon  public  assistance  programs  would  be  low.  However,  they  expect  this  rate 
to  build  over  4  years,  to  match  the  rate  of  the  present  American  population.  Using 
an  effective  date  of  October  1,  1983,  CBO  estimated  that  Federal  public  assistance 
costs  could  be  expected  to  equal,  annually,  $1,191  billion;  by  1989,  this  cost  is  pre- 
dicted to  rise  to  $1,895  billion  for  that  year. 

Mr.  Chairman,  today  the  Federal  Government  is  suffering  from  an  overwhelming 
deficit;  the  States  are  being  forced  to  make  up  for  reductions  in  funding  for  many 
public  assistance  programs,  and  this  legislation  could  be  the  straw  that  breaks  the 
camel's  back. 

In  response  to  this  concern,  I  was  pleased  to  note  that  H.R.  1510  included,  under 
section  302,  the  provision  to  update  the  "registry  date"  of  current  law,  from  June 
30,  1948  to  January  1,  1973. 

This  provision  encompasses  a  measure  which  I  introduced  during  the  last  session 
of  Congress,  and  I  believe  that  a  registry  date  of  January  1,  1973,  will  allow  Mem- 
bers of  the  House  an  opportunity  for  compromise,  which  if  retained,  would  provide  a 
more  realistic  reform  of  immigration  law,  in  lieu  of  the  legalization  provisions  in 
the  proposal  before  us. 

In  addition  to  my  concerns  with  illegal  immigration,  I  have  concerns  over  legal 
immigration.  The  fifth  preference  category  for  legal  immigrants  has  broad  implica- 
tions for  our  country,  particularly  when  coupled  with  the  possibility  of  amnesty  for 
illegal  aliens. 

In  1979,  92,227  immigrants  were  admitted  under  the  fifth  preference  category,  a 
category  which  includes  brothers  and  sisters  of  permanent  residents,  as  well  as 
their  spouses  and  children.  This  number  represented  over  one-third  of  all  immi- 
grants admitted  during  1979  under  our  system  of  preferences  for  relatives  of  perma- 
nent residents,  according  to  the  U.S.  Department  of  Justice  1979  Statistical  Year- 
book. 

To  demonstrate  the  economic  impact  of  immigration,  let  me  refer  to  a  study  pre- 
sented by  Mr.  David  M.  Heer  at  the  annual  meeting  of  the  Population  Association 
of  America,  April  29th  to  May  1st,  1982.  Mr.  Heer's  survey  included  unmarried 
mothers  of  Mexican  origin  with  one  or  more  U.S.-born  children  (age  2  or  over)  who 
had  resided  in  the  United  States  for  12  months  in  1979,  and  received  Aid  to  Fami- 
lies with  Dependent  Children  (AFDC). 

This  study  found  that  18.36  percent  of  illegal  alien  mothers  received  AFDC  bene- 
fits, while  21.87  percent  of  legal  alien  mothers  in  the  study  received  benefits.  Of 
American-born  mothers  in  the  study,  approximately  18.46  percent  received  benefits. 

The  study  suggested  that  the  rate  of  dependence  upon  public  assistance  for  legal- 
immigrant  mothers  was  slightly  higher  than  the  rate  of  dependence  for  U.S.-born 
single  mothers. 

Even  if  these  rates  reflect  little  difference,  the  figures  should  indicate  to  us  that 
our  public  assistance  costs  will  increase,  in  proportion  to  the  increase  in  our  legal- 
resident  alien  population. 

Combining  the  costs  for  public  assistance  to  legal  immigrants  with  the  costs  of 
public  assistance  to  aliens  granted  permanent  residence  is  potentially  staggering. 

Mr.  Chairman,  my  experiences  with  immigration  law  in  Omaha,  Nebr.,  together 
with  the  substantial  input  I  have  received  from  my  constituents,  lead  me  to  believe 
that  the  issue  of  immigration  reform  must  be  thoroughly  debated.  I  remain  con- 
vinced that  a  great  many  Americans,  particularly  at  this  critical  time  in  our  na- 
tion's history,  have  grave  reservations  over  liberalizing  our  immigration  laws  in  the 
manner  proposed  by  H.R.  1510. 

Finally,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  look  forward  to  working  with  you  in  the  coming  months 
to  achieve  meaningful,  yet  realistic  immigration  reform. 

Thank  you. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Hal,  thank  you  very  much.  Let  me  yield  myself  5 
minutes  to  begin  some  questions. 

Mr.  Daub.  Yes. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  You  mentioned  that  the  registry  date  approach  is 
preferable,  in  your  judgment,  as  an  immigration  lawyer,  as  you 
studied  the  problem,  than  trying  to  do  something  through  legaliza- 
tion. 


208 

Let  me  ask  you:  One  of  the  problems  with  legalization,  whatever 
date  you  pick,  whatever  form — two-track,  three-track — is  the  fact 
that  whenever  you  make  these  people  legal,  you  legalize  and  cor- 
rect their  status,  you  then  give  them  the  opportunity  to  participate 
like  resident  aliens  or  U.S.  citizens  in  the  welfare  system.  That 
became  such  a  constant  battle  to  us,  because  the  original  draft  of 
Simpson-Mazzoli  had  no  disability  to  speak  of  for  those  who  had 
been  here  before  the  earlier  date. 

Mr.  Daub.  Yes;  I  recall. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  They  would  be  the  same  as  any  resident  coming 
from  any  part  of  the  world  through  the  legal  immigration  program. 

Our  experience  and  what  testimony  we  had  said. 

These  people  are  workers.  They  came  here  to  work.  They  are  not  net-takers  but 
probably  net-givers.  The  experience  ought  not  be  too  perilous,  so  let's  take  those  ear- 
lier-date people  and  they  will  take  what  they  are  entitled  to  take. 

But  that  was  such  a  bugaboo  for  some  of  our  friends  that  we 
then  put  in,  as  you  know,  certain  disabilities,  certain  restrictions 
on  what  some  of  these  newly  legalized  people  could  obtain,  includ- 
ing those  from  the  earlier  date  as  well. 

The  question  I  would  ask  is  this:  If  our  critics  are  correct  that 
those  who  would  be  7  years  or  more,  when  they  are  legalized  would 
have  their  hand  out  palm  up — if  that  criticism  is  correct.  What 
would  keep  your  10-year  period  people — because  your  registry  date  is 
a  10-year  period — from  having  the  very  same  effect.  And,  as  I 
understand  it,  these  people,  under  the  10-year  registry,  would  not  be 
barred  from  taking  any  benefits.  They  would  be  entitled  to  them  as 
any  permanent  resident.  We  think  it's  constitutional  to  limit  the 
access  of  newly  legalized  people  under  this  formula  for  legalization 
to  the  welfare  system.  You  do  not  for  those  under  the  registry. 

So  I  wonder:  Are  we  not  simply  continuing  the  same  problem  if 
our  critics  are  correct  at  all? 

Mr.  Daub.  Well,  I  understand  that.  And  the  question,  I  guess,  be- 
comes the  tradeoff,  as  I  suggested  the  idea  of  compromise.  Again,  I 
hope  you  recognize  that  I  am  very  concerned  about  providing  a 
mechanism  for  legalization.  I  think  that's  important.  I'm  not 
saying  that  the  old  way  of  doing  it  is  perfect,  but  I  do  believe  that 
with  a  separate  court  system  or  a  provision  for  fast-tracking,  the 
consideration  of  documentation,  the  coming  forth  of  20  percent  or 
30  percent  or  70  percent  of  the  people  you'd  like  to  have  in  that  7- 
year  period  or  10-year  period  may  be  still  a  very  difficult  nut  to 
crack. 

I  just  believe  that  the  case-by-case  approach  sends  a  message  to 
people  who  indeed  come  to  this  country  and  their  status  is  illegal 
to  begin  with,  that  it  is  not  going  to  be  easy,  as  history  will  show, 
for  you  to  become  a  permanent  resident,  which  leads  to  citizenship, 
which  then  leads  to  the  use  of  fifth  preference,  which  over  a  period 
of  30  or  40  years  can  add  as  many  as  60  to  70  million  people  under 
the  current  attractiveness  of  knowing  that,  in  fact,  blanket  legal- 
ization would  occur. 

And  I  think  the  costs  are  enormous  under  any  circumstances,  so 
I'm  not  sure  the  critics  are  right  or  wrong  as  they  look  at  a  7-year 


209 

period  or  a  10-year  period.  I'm  willing  to  accept  the  fact  that  the 
money  costs  are  still  going  to  be  there,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Well,  in  the  form  of  our  bill,  whatever  costs  occur 
to  the  States  is  picked  up  by  the  Federal  Government. 
Mr.  Daub.  Yes,  I  understand. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  It  would  not  be  true  under  the  registry.  That  would 
be  State  responsibility  100  percent.  So  if  the  people  are  going  to  be 
takers,  then  in  the  case  of  the  registry  date  they  are  taking  it  right 
from  the  States.  In  our  formula,  the  States  get  reimbursed  from 
the  Federal  Government. 

But  let  me  make  sure  the  record  is  clear.  We  certainly  do  not 
propose  a  blanket  amnesty.  That  is  the  difference  between  that 
term  which  is  used  to  describe  our  bill  and  legalization.  This  legal- 
ization program  we  have  here  is  a  case-by-case  approach.  Every 
person  will  be  examined.  There  are  verifications  necessary,  includ- 
ing proof  of  how  long  applicants  been  in  the  country. 

I  might  say,  as  I  offered  to  do  for  one  of  the  earlier  witnesses,  I 
would  like  to  send  you  the  material  which  the  Immigration  Service 
has  prepared  as  they  have  been  looking  at  this  problem  for  the  last 
6  or  7  months,  anticipating  the  passage  of  our  bill.  They  have  been 
working  on  a  task  force.  And  the  way  they  outline  it,  it  is  not  going 
to  be  easy  for  someone  to  just  proffer  themselves  and  say,  "Look, 
make  me  a  citzen."  It  isn't  going  to  be  that  easy. 

I  just  want  to  be  sure  the  record  is  clear  that  we  do  not  have  a 
blanket  approach  where  everybody  is  just  routinely  welcomed.  Ev- 
erybody will  be  examined  and  will  have  to  be  screened.  To  that 
extent,  it  does  become  a  kind  of  registry  activity. 

Mr.  Daub.  That's  my  point.  Isn't  the  point,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
in  fact  if  it's  1977  and  1980,  as  a  rule,  there  isn't  any  doubt  about 
the  fact  they  have  had  to  be  here  in  any  way,  shape,  or  form? 
Someone  can  just  prove  that  they  have  been  here  prior  to  that 
time? 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  They  have  to  prove  it,  and  of  course  they  have  to 
prove  it  with  the  material  that  the  Immigration  Service,  from 
guidelines  later  to  be  published,  would  find  persuasive. 

So  if  a  person  comes  in  and  says,  "Look,  I  don't  have  any  proof 
but  I've  been  here  for  7  years,"  that  person  is  not  going  to  be  quali- 
fied to  come  in.  The  fact  that  they  are  physically  in  the  United 
States  when  this  bill  goes  into  effect  does  not  guarantee  that  they 
are  going  to  qualify.  They  have  to  show  that  they  came  before  the 
cutoff  date. 

We  do  not  have  a  blanket  amnesty.  We  have  a  legalization  pro- 
gram. 

Mr.  Daub.  Do  you  propose  to  perfect  that  by  the  intent  of  the 
discussion  or  in  the  specific  language  of  the  bill  itself? 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  That  is  in  our  bill  now.  We  also  have  a  registry 
date  in  our  bill  because  that  was  added  at  the  full  committee. 

Mr.  Daub.  Right;  I  understand  that. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  But  I  do  not  think  they  are  mutually  exclusive. 

Mr.  Daub.  Do  you  want  to  try  to  utilize  that  to  mean  something 
to  Immigration  as  they  formulate 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  yield  to  fellows  like  yourself  who  practice  immi- 
gration. You  said  the  old  registry  date  was  out  of  whack,  so  I 
accept  the  fact  that  1973  may  be  the  more  realistic  date.  But  I  do 


210 

not  think  just  doing  that  solves  the  States'  problems  because,  if 
that  were  the  only  thing  we  did  in  a  program  here  for  legalization, 
those  people  who  came  in  before  10  years  would  be  total  State  re- 
sponsibilities. There  would  be  no  Federal  bailout,  if  you  will,  for 
their  welfare  costs. 

And  if  you  believe  the  critics,  who  I  think  are  wrong,  that  the 
people  will  say,  "Look,  you  tell  me  what  date  to  be  here,  I'll  find 
the  papers  for  that  date,"  they  might  as  well  say  they've  been  10 
years  as  7  years.  But  in  the  latter  case,  those  people  coming  in 
under  legalization,  their  welfare  costs,  whatever  they  are — and  I 
dispute  strongly  what  the  States  seem  to  say  here — those  would  be 
a  matter  of  Federal-State  cooperation. 

Mr.  Daub.  I  do  believe  we  have  to  place  som.e  responsibility  on 
the  States  to  assist  in  the  regulated  activity  that  would  be  required 
by  this  kind  of  legislation.  And  if  we  just  make  it  possible  for  all  of 
their  bills  to  be  paid,  then  I  think  we  could  be  in  for  some  of  the 
exaggerated  criticism  that  is  being  aimed  at  us  now. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  gentleman  from  Texas  is  recognized  for  5  min- 
utes. 

Mr.  Hall.  Hal,  I've  read  your  statement  and  I've  listened  to  your 
testimony,  but  I  don't  know  what  the  bottom  line  to  it  is.  You 
stated  at  the  outset  that  you  wanted  a  bill.  On  page  3  you  say, 
"The  Federal  Government  is  suffering  from  an  overwhelming  defi- 
cit, the  States  are  being  forced  to  make  up  for  reductions,"  and 
then,  "This  legislation  could  be  the  straw  that  breaks  the  camel's 
back." 

I  don't  understand  that  statement.  Would  you  explain  it  to  me? 

Mr.  Daub.  Surely.  Congressman  Leland  talked  about  it  a  little 
bit  before.  If  you  are  concerned  about  the  slant  of  one's  eye,  the 
color  of  one's  skin,  or  the  sound  of  their  voice,  and  if  indeed  we 
look  at  the  relationships  that  amnesty  brings— I  use  that  term  be- 
cause I  feel  that  the  intent  of  the  legislation,  at  least  the  Senate 
language  that  I  am  looking  at  as  it  may  be  dovetailed  with  the  con- 
ference committee  report  and  then  this  legislation,  gives  indeed 
what  I  consider  to  be  blanket  amnesty. 

Now,  I  understand  the  distinction  the  chairman  made,  but  that 
is  my  interpretation  of  the  way  in  which  the  legislation  is  headed. 
And  it  is  for  that  reason  that  I  would  prefer  us  to  take  the  ap- 
proach of  the  use  in  a  single  fashion  of  a  registry  date,  and  not 
allow  all  of  those  who  come  automatically  before  a  certain  date, 
who  can  in  some  way  verify  or  document  that,  to  be  granted  per- 
manent residence. 

If  we  do  that,  I  think  we  are  opening  the  gate  to  making  it  very 
attractive  to  expect  that  in  10  more  years  we  will  do  the  same 
thing. 

Mr.  Hall.  I  don't  think  there's  any  question  about  that  if  this 
bill  passed  in  its  present  form.  We  are  not  going  to  stop  people 
from  coming  to  this  country,  and  we  will  probably  have  to  do  this 
again  10  years  from  now,  maybe  in  a  lesser  time. 

Are  you  in  favor  of  the  advancement  of  this  registry  date  of  Jan- 
uary 1,  1973,  a  change? 

Mr.  Daub.  I'm  in  favor  of  it  being  changed  from  where  it  is  in 
the  present  law  to  1973.  It's  1948  now. 

Mr.  Hall.  1948  to  1973.  Are  you  in  favor  of  that? 


211 

Mr.  Daub.  Correct. 

Mr.  Hall.  Well,  are  you  saying  that  the  fifth  preference,  as  now 
in  use,  should  be  changed? 

Mr.  Daub.  Correct  me  if  I'm  wrong.  The  Senate  version  of  the 
bill  on  fifth  preference  is  eliminated. 

Mr.  Hall.  In  the  Senate  version,  the  fifth  preference  is  eliminat- 
ed, yes.  In  the  House  version  we  are  silent.  We  do  not  change  any- 
thing at  this  point. 

Mr.  Daub.  Right.  So  my  point  is  that  coupling  what  I  call  almost 
a  universal  legalization,  that  leads  to  the  use  of  the  fifth  preference 
in  a  way  which  the  multiplier  effect  of  that  brings  in  many,  many 
more  people  than  I  think  we  are  anticipating  in  the  numbers. 

Mr.  Hall.  If  you  don't  have  a  fifth  preference,  is  it  not  a  fact 
that  if  an  individual  comes  in  without  a  fifth  preference,  he  or  she 
may  not  be  able  to  bring  in  their  spouses  or  their  children? 

Mr.  Daub.  Well,  I'm  not  sure  what  the  House  version  of  the  bill 
is  trying  to  say.  It  remains  silent  on  that  issue,  Mr.  Hall,  so  I  think 
that  needs  to  be  clarified. 

Mr.  Mazzoll  In  the  full  committee  markup,  the  full  committee 
in  its  wisdom  struck  the  entire  legal  immigration  section  which  we 
had  written  into  our  bill  at  the  subcommittee  level,  which  was 
somewhat  a  change  from  the  Senate  version.  The  then-House  ver- 
sion said  that  the  fifth  preference  would  be  restored  to  the  extent 
of  unmarried  brothers  and  sisters. 

Mr.  Daub.  Limited  to  that. 

Mr.  Mazzoll  Limited  to  that.  We  also  made  the  change  in  the 
second  preference.  But  as  to  the  fifth,  the  version  that  went  to  the 
full  Judiciary  Committee  restored  the  fifth  preference,  but  in  effect 
limited  it  from  current  law— limited  it  to  unmarried  brothers  and 
sisters.  But  then  the  entire  section  was  struck  by  the  full  commit- 

tee. 

Mr.  Daub.  I  think  that's  my  point,  that  I  don't  know  where  you 
may  be  headed  on  that  issue.  I'm  raising  the  point  that  if  you  have 
almost  a  pure  legalization  up  to  1977,  and  then  use  what  is  normal- 
ly the  5  years  of  permanent  residence  that  results  in  citizenship- 
going  from  the  legalization  window  to  the  naturalization  window— 
you  then,  without  some  other  limitation  on  fifth  preference— and  I 
think  again,  even  limiting  it  to  the  unmarried  brother  and  sister  is 
a  step  in  the  right  direction— change  the  numbers  in  terms  of  what 
the  public  assistance  provisions  of  this  law  might  be  2,  3,  5,  8,  9,  10 
years  from  now. 

And  I  think  that  is  what  my  concern  is.  I  want  to  be  sure  there 
is  a  broader  view  of  legalization  than  just  the  numbers  that  we  are 
talking  about  now;  that  it  is  the  use  of  fifth  preference  in  the  old 
way,  the  way  the  law  now  reads,  that  could  add  giant  numbers  of 
people  to  the  systems  for  which  the  States  are  now  struggling  to 

pay. 

Mr.  Hall.  But  from  a  practical  standpoint,  would  it  be  fair  to 
eliminate  a  fifth  preference  and  say  to  a  man  whom  you  have 
granted  some  sort  of  amnesty  that,  "You  cannot  bring  your  spouse, 
you  cannot  bring  your  children,  and  you  cannot  bring  over  here 
your  unmarried  brothers  and  sisters." 

Mr.  Daub.  I  understand  the  problem,  and  I  know  how  sensitive  it 
is,  so  I  will  state  my  feelings  on  the  matter. 


212 

As  a  lawyer,  I  have  watched  the  use  of  the  system,  and  I  would 
say  to  you  that  it  is  an  attractive  proposition  to  navigate  your  way 
into  the  system  now  as  an  illegal  alien,  because  you  are  very  well 
aware  of  the  fact  that  if,  in  some  way,  shape,  or  form,  there  is  blan- 
ket amnesty,  then  the  possibility  of  bringing  your  wife  and  your 
children  and  others  here  exists.  In  other  words,  the  risks  right  now 
are  worth  it. 

And  I  don't  want  to  say  I  am  not  compassionate  under  a  registry 
date  for  those  who  have  been  here  10  years  and  developed  family 
networks  and  family  relationships,  and  I  am  willing  to  consider  the 
grandfathering  of  that  kind  of  a  family  relationship.  But  to  say  to 
that  new  person  who  might  come  in,  "You  can  bring  Mom  and  Dad 
and  you  can  bring  your  wife  or  your  husband  and  your  brothers 
and  sisters,"  and  all  of  those  married  relationships  that  flow  from 
what  I  have  just  said  adds  numbers  to  the  system  to  which  I  don't 
think  we  really  are  paying  enough  attention. 

Mr.  Hall.  Thank  you,  Hal. 

Mr.  Mazzoll  The  gentleman's  time  is  up.  Thank  you. 

The  gentleman  from  California,  our  ranking  member,  is  recog- 
nized for  5  minutes. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Hal,  I  think  since  you  recognize  that  we  have  this  problem  in  im- 
migration, we  have  got  to  do  something  about  it,  and  Congress  will 
so  rarely  do  something  significant  about  this  subject,  is  it  reason- 
able either  through  a  registry  date  or  legalization  program  to  cut  it 
off  at  1973?  What  do  we  do  with  those  who  came  in  since  that  time 
and  have  ties  in  the  community  and  so  forth? 

Mr.  Daub.  I  think  we  have  to  appreciate  that  we  have  to  decide 
just  how  tough  we  are  going  to  be  on  this  issue.  And  we  can  decide 
that  every  2  or  3  or  4  years  we  are  going  to  say,  "All  those  who 
have  come  in  now  are  documentable  and  are  now  legal  and  are 
now  permanent,"  and  we  can  sweep  it  aside.  But  the  population 
impact  of  that  is  staggering  when,  in  fact,  the  public  assistance 
costs  that  we  then  presume  to  pick  up  in  that  legalization  I  think 
offend  the  sense  of  those  who  have  worked  and  have  come  here  le- 
gally through  the  quota  systems  and  who  in  fact  have  sponsors  and 
those  bills  are  paid  for  them. 

I  think  that's  my  point.  We  certainly  do  have  to  do  what  we  feel 
will  improve  the  circumstances  over  the  way  things  are  handled 
now,  but  I  really  believe  that  a  fuller  sense  of  legalization  brings 
with  it  problems  that  offend  even  those  who  stand  in  line  for  8  and 
10  and  20  years  elsewhere  in  this  world  to  come  here  legally.  And  I 
think  we  have  to  be  careful  about  that. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  I  understand  that,  and  I  think  you  are  properly 
correct  on  that.  My  question  still  is:  What  do  you  do  with  those 
who  have  come  here  since  January  1,  1973,  up  to  the  present  time? 

Mr.  Daub.  They're  illegal.  They  should  be  handled  in  the  same 
way  that  we  presume  the  law  would  now  if  found  and  discovered. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  But  the  law  doesn't  find  and  discover  them  now. 

Mr.  Daub.  I  appreciate  that  problem. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  So  what  do  we  do? 

Mr.  Daub.  I'm  not  sure  we're  ignoring  that.  That  is  an  enforce- 
ment matter  I  think  the  Judiciary  Committee  and  the  Justice  De- 
partment need  to  address.  I  appreciate  that  problem  is  there.  The 


213 

registry  date  move  and  the  acceleration  as  this  bill  suggests— there 
are  many  other  ways  of  care  for  those  people— solves  a  large  part 
of  the  problem  as  we  have  defined  it  up  to  this  point.  It  takes  care 
of  a  couple  million  people,  Congressman. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  Let  me  put  it  in  this  perspective.  I  think  a  lot  of 
people  recognize,  as  we  all  do,  we  haven't  had  an  enforcement  of 
current  law,  perhaps  because  we  are  never  given  the  resources. 
And  now  the  system  is  out  of  hand.  And  no  matter  how  many  re- 
sources you  give,  unless  you  want  to  go,  as  I  said  before,  to  neigh- 
borhood sweeps,  not  only  in  the  bario  but  in  Beverly  Hills,  Santa 
Ana,  Long  Beach 

Mr.  Daub.  And  Omaha,  Nebraska.  I  understand. 

Mr.  LuNGREN  [continuing].  And  knock  on  doors  and  find  out  who 
is  working  in  the  family  estate  there.  Are  we  going  to  deport  these 

people? 

But  I  do  think  that  if  we  take  care  of  the  situation  now  some- 
how— you  know,  in  a  reasonable  way — and  recognize  we  have  not 
enforced  the  law,  and  we  have  an  insuperable  problem  in  terms  of 
enforcement,  and  basically  wipe  the  slate  clean  in  the  long  run  we 
will  be  the  wiser. 

Mr.  Daub.  But  you  do  have  a  better  system  because  this  bill  pro- 
vides for— a  part  of  the  bill  which  I  support  strongly,  and  that  is, 
contrary  to  my  Chamber  friends— I  think  the  employer  sanction 
part  of  this  legislation  is  really  the  answer.  And  that  is  one  of  the 
reasons  I  want  to  work  to  see  to  it  that  we  do  get  a  bill  this  year. 
Because  I  think,  regardless  of  all  the  concern  and  criticism  about 
that,  we  can  devise  as  fair  a  way  as  one  can  imagine  for  an  en- 
forcement system.  If  we  require  under  quota  that  sponsored  person 
to  have  an  affidavit  of  support  and  the  financial  means  at  that 
legal  immigrant's  disposal  to  keep  them  from  being  a  public 
charge,  then  I  see  no  reason  why  you  cannot  in  this  committee  con- 
tinue to  aggressively  pursue  the  use  of  employer  sanctions.  And  I 
think  that  is  the  answer. 

I  realize  there  is  a  no  man's  land  in  between.  Where  I  say  1973 
to  1981  or  1982  or  1983,  that  becomes  a  matter  of  what  I  call  en- 
forcement clean-up,  rather  than  saddling  the  States  with  a  propor- 
tion of  expense  and  the  Federal  Government  with  a  proportion  of 
the  expense  vis-a-vis  the  unemployment  factor  we  now  have — and  I 
think  we  can  manage  that  gap  better  if  we  have  the  employer  sanc- 
tion provisions.  And  I  hope  you  recognize  I  do  support  those  provi- 
sions. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  I'm  sure  you  understand  the  employer  sanctions 
are  only  prospective. 

Mr.  Daub.  I  appreciate  that.  Again,  I  appreciate  there's  a  no 
man's  land  there.  You  defined  it  accurately,  and  that  becomes  a 
matter  of  enforcement. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  As  long  as  they  stay  in  the  job  that  they  had  at 
the  time  the  law  goes  into  effect  and  came  here  after  1973,  they 
would  not  be  subject  to  enforcement— that  is,  their  employer  would 
not  be  subject  to  enforcement. 

Mr.  Daub.  If  they  came  prior  to  1973. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  No;  if  they  came  after  1973.  What  I'm  saying  is  if 
they  fall  in  that  no  man's  land  that  came  here  after  1973,  your  reg- 
istry date,  yet  they  maintain  the  same  employment  they  had  at  the 


214 

time  this  law  goes  into  effect,  they  are  in  effect  grandfathered  with 
respect  to  any  sanctions  against  their  employers. 

Mr.  Daub.  Yes,  but  they  themselves  are  not. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  gentleman's  time  has  expired. 

The  gentleman  from  Florida,  Mr.  McCollum,  is  recognized  for  5 

minutes. 

Mr.  McCollum.  I  wish  to  commend  the  gentleman  for  his  presen- 
tation. I  agree  wholeheartedly  with  the  registry  date  position  and 
with  the  desire  to  substitute  it  for  legalization.  I  think  my  good 
friend  and  colleague  from  California,  who  frequently  combats  with 
me  on  the  subject,  knows  that  there  is  another  side,  which  you  are 
articulating  very  well  and  you  mentioned  and  alluded  {o  it,  which 
is  employer  sanctions.  Because  if  we  put  those  in  place,  those  who 
have  been  here  since  1973  will  over  a  period  of  time  by  attrition 
wind  up  moving  from  one  position  to  another,  and  I  believe  a  large 
proportion  of  them  without  enforcement  will  go  back  on  their  own 
because  they  won't  have  a  job. 

Mr.  Daub.  There's  another  thing  you  need  to  know.  If  you  look 
at  the  data  that  we  are  best  able  to  examine  in  terms  of  who  these 
people  are,  and  if  you  assume  there's  10  million  or  assume  there's 
4.5  million,  some  of  those  people  are  young,  some  are  old  people, 
some  are  impaired  in  some  way,  physically  or  mentally,  and  some 
are  just  plain  not  seeking  work.  So  you  are  probably  looking  at 
only  a  factor  of  25  percent  of  this  figure,  whatever  it  is,  that  really 
impact  in  terms  of  job  displacement  right  now. 

If  that  is  indeed  true.  Congressman  Lungren,  that  attrition  is 
going  to  happen  very  rapidly  between  1973  and  1983  or  1984.  The 
movement  of  these  people  will  be  very  rapid.  And  I  don't  see  it  as  a 
real  major  problem  to  the  policy  we  would  establish  if  we  went 
strictly  to  a  blanket  legalization. 

Mr.  McCollum.  You  do  see  a  major  problem,  though,  with  the 
magnet  effect  of  legalization  up  to  the  current  time  which  is  draw- 
ing more  people  across  the  borders,  as  the  latest  issue  of  U.S.  News 
&  World  Report  indicates  is  happening  right  now. 

Mr.  Daub.  I  think  there's  no  doubt  about  it.  But  this  isn't  new.  I 
think  you  have  all  worked  with  this  issue  long  enough  to  have  seen 
what's  happened  at  each  10-  or  12-year  increment  in  our  history. 
The  magnet  effect,  in  my  judgment,  isn't  nearly  as  bad  right  now, 
Mr.  McCollum,  as  it's  going  to  be  once  we  establish  a  precedent  for 
a  sweeping  use  of  the  legalizing  of  one's  illegal  status.  If  we  are 
more  cautious  about  it,  you  know,  "If  you  came  in  1975  or  1978  you 
are  just  not  free,  you  are  not  going  to  get  off  the  hook  if  you  get 
caught,"  I  think  we've  sent  a  message  out  there  that  we're  not 
going  to  participate  in  being  overwhelmed  by  the  magnet  effect,  as 
it  is  called. 

Mr.  McCollum.  I  yield  back  my  time. 

Mr.  Mazzoll  Thank  you. 

Thank  you  very  much,  Hal. 

Mr.  Daub.  Thank  you  very  much.  I  look  forward  to  working  with 
you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Mazzoll  Bless  you. 

We  now  welcome  our  next  witness,  the  congressman  from  the 
District  of  Columbia,  my  good  friend,  my  congressional  classmate. 


215 

and  our  eminent  first  baseman— not  necessarily  in  that  order- 
Walter  Fauntroy. 

We  welcome  you,  Walter.  And  your  statement  will  be  made  a 
part  of  the  record.  You  are  free  to  read  it  speak  from  it. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HON.  WALTER  FAUNTROY,  DELEGATE  FROM  THE 

DISTRICT  OF  COLUMBIA 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  Thank  you  so  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman.  And  I 
want  to  thank  you  and  the  other  distinguished  members  of  the 
committee  for  inviting  me  to  appear  before  the  subcommittee  to 
offer  testimony  on  H.R.  1510.  I  also  want  to  formally  thank  you 
and  the  staff  of  the  subcommittee  for  the  willingness  to  engage  in 
meaningful  dialogue  and  to  consider  the  concerns  which  other 
members  and  I  have  expressed. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  I  appear  before  you  as  chair  of  the  Black  Caucus 
Task  Force  on  Haitian  Refugees.  I  also  appear  before  you  as  a 
Member  of  Congress  whose  constituency  includes  many  peoples 
representative  of  this  "New  Immigration,"  who  have  come  to  our 
country  from  the  Caribbean,  from  Africa,  and  Central  America  and 
are  contributing  to  our  community. 

Before  discussing  my  reservations  to  specific  provisions  of  H.R. 
1510,  I  would  like  to  stress  two  points  which  for  me  serve  to  frame 
the  issues  embodied  in  the  legislation  before  the  subcommittee. 

First,  the  debate  on  this  question  must  be  free  of  scapegoating 
and  acrimony  that  somehow  links  the  crisis  confronting  our  econo- 
my with  the  phenomena  of  immigration  and  refugee  policy.  I  am 
quite  aware  that  there  are  some  pressures  on  the  labor  market  re- 
sulting from  the  presence  of  undocumented  entrants.  I  am  also 
acutely  aware  of  the  fact  that  these  entrants  are  easily  exploited 
and  victimized. 

Needless  to  say,  however,  our  economic  crisis  will  not  be  solved 
in  any  significant  way  by  the  resolution  of  the  issues  before  this 
subcommittee.  This  is  not  a  jobs  bill.  Our  focus  should  be  clearly  on 
it  as  an  immigration  issue,  and  we  should  address  it  in  that  con- 
text. 

Our  economic  problems  are  profound,  involving  issues  basic  to 
the  competitiveness  of  our  economic  system,  and  the  solution  to  the 
problem  of  unemployment  requires  fiscal  and  monetary  policies 
that  affect  the  labor  market  and  work  to  revitalize  our  industrial 
base.  Black  leadership  will  not  be  diverted  by  the  potential  for 
scapegoating  in  a  national  debate  on  immigration,  but  will  work  to 
bring  together  a  coalition  of  conscience  that  will  pass  genuine  job 
creation  legislation. 

My  second  point  before  I  address  the  proposals  of  H.R.  1510  is 
the  present  and  past  management  neglect,  underfunding,  and  un- 
derstaffing  of  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service.  INS  is 
unable  to  undertake  the  enforcement  of  existing  laws  in  a  timely 
and  efficient  manner.  Additional  duties  and  responsibilities  ema- 
nating from  the  passage  of  this  bill  would  greatly  exacerbate  an  al- 
ready chaotic  situation. 

In  the  Washington,  D.C.,  area  district  office,  which  is  considered 
the  flagship  office  of  the  Service,  there  is  a  serious  lack  of  enough 


216 

competent  and  well-trained  staff.  The  staff  is  overworked,  and  in 
spite  of  their  dedicated  attempts  to  perform  their  duties  and  to  be 
both  efficient  and  courteous  to  the  public,  they  are  simply  over- 
whelmed by  the  workload. 

Just  to  cite  one  statistic:  it  takes  12  months  to  3  years  to  get  an 
application  for  naturalization  processed.  The  system  lacks  the  per- 
sonnel and  management  structure  necessary  for  carrying  out  the 
provisions  of  H.R.  1510.  This  problem  is  paramount  and  its  correc- 
tion would  involve  a  significant  allocation  of  additional  resources 
to  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service.  I  would  submit 
that  the  allocation  of  additional  resources  should  precede  the  un- 
dertaking of  any  additional  responsibilities  by  INS. 

I  also  wish  to  stress  my  concern  that  there  are  no  black  or  His- 
panic employees  at  the  senior  executive  policymaking  level  of  the 
Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service.  This  points  to  the  urgent 
need  for  affirmative  action  and  for  making  the  Service  more  repre- 
sentative of  the  public  and  the  clientele  which  it  serves. 

I  wish  now  to  speak  to  four  provisions  of  H.R.  1510:  access  to  ju- 
dicial review  for  asylum  applicants,  summary  exclusion,  legaliza- 
tion, and  employer  sanctions. 

First,  with  respect  to  access  to  judicial  review,  I  want  to  com- 
mend you,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  the  subcommittee  for  structuring  a 
more  independent  process  for  adjudicating  asylum  claims.  I  think 
the  system  that  is  recommended  in  this  legislation  is  a  positive 
step  forward  and  should  be  supported.  However,  I  must  state  my 
firm  opposition  to  a  provision  in  the  section  dealing  with  asylum 
that  undermines  fundamental  due  process  by  removing  the  role  of 
the  Federal  district  courts  in  reviewing  applications  for  asylum. 

As  I  read  the  section  that  concerns  judicial  review  and  the  rele- 
vant Committee  on  the  Judiciary  report  language,  asylum  appli- 
cants would  be  denied  access  to  the  Federal  district  courts  for 
review  of  the  lawfulness  and  constitutionality  of  INS  processing  of 
asylum  claims.  I  quote  from  the  committee  report,  97-890,  page  50: 

The  Committee  Amendment,  however,  makes  clear  that  regardless  of  whether  or 
not  the  alien  is  in  custody,  the  proper  and  sole  avenue  of  review  is  through  the  cir- 
cuit courts. 

The  Committee  is  concerned  with  the  reasoning  of  the  Smith  Court  and  thus  has 
adopted  provisions  in  this  legislation  to  insure  that  no  district  court  shall  have  juris- 
diction under  28  U.S.C.  Section  1331,  and  8  U.S.C.  Section  1329  or  any  other  provi- 
sion of  law  to  hear  cases  involving  final  orders  of  deportation  or  exclusion.  This  pro- 
hibition on  premature  petitioning  of  the  courts  encompasses  not  only  final  orders 
denying  the  asylum  applications  but  also  any  actions  or  inactions  by  the  Service  or 
the  administrative  law  judges,  or  the  USIB,  or  any  other  party  which  even  tangen- 
tially  relates  to  the  manner  in  which  the  asylum  process  is  carried  forth. 

My  overriding  concern  is  that  the  proposed  legislation  will  re- 
strict the  right  of  all  asylum  claimants  to  judicial  review  of  admin- 
istrative agency  action.  Judicial  review,  such  as  that  provided  in 
the  case  of  the  Haitian  Refugee  Center  v.  Smith,  is  mandated  not 
only  because  of  domestic  and  international  legal  norms,  but  most 
importantly  because  it  is  essential  to  our  Nation's  sense  of  funda- 
mental justice  and  fairness;  and  above  all,  it  is  an  indispensable 
remedy  within  our  system  of  laws. 

Our  constitutional  system  of  checks  and  balances  demands  that 
every  governmental  action  or  administrative  act  be  subject  to  a 
degree  of  judicial  scrutiny,  and  it  is  fundamentally  incompatible 


217 

with  our  system  of  government  for  a  department  of  the  executive 
branch  of  government  to  be  the  sole  arbitrator  of  its  own  acts.  Ju- 
dicial scrutiny  is  especially  crucial  in  the  context  of  claims  for  po- 
litical asylum  because  the  stakes  are  so  very  high,  and  miscar- 
riages of  justice  may  well  have  grave  consequences  that  can  never 
be  corrected.  Federal  court  jurisdiction  over  final  decisions  of  the 
Immigration  Service  must  be  maintained  not  only  to  protect  refu- 
gees seeking  asylum  in  the  United  States,  but  also  because  it  is  a 
fundamental  right  of  all  persons  residing  within  our  country. 

It  is  true  H.R.  1510  allows  individuals  access  to  the  Federal  cir- 
cuit courts  of  appeal.  This  is  not  adequate.  In  the  last  2  years  the 
circuit  courts  of  appeal  have  considered  only  12  cases  involving  po- 
litical asylum.  This  reflects,  among  other  things,  the  reality  that 
most  individual  asylum  applicants  simply  do  not  have  the  re- 
sources or  access  to  lawyers  specializing  in  immigration  law  and 
refugee  matters. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  restrictions  on  judicial  review  contained  in 
H.R.  1510  represent  yet  another  court-stripping  effort  hostile  to  the 
principle  of  the  rule  of  law. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  am  really  constrainted  to  interrupt  at  this  point 
because  I  really  seriously  dispute  that  characterization  of  the  bill. 

Let  me  say  that  in  the  current  law,  an  asylee  or  prospective 
asylee  has  no  automatic  right  of  judicial  review  of  the  question  of 
his  or  her  asylum.  That  is  done  through  the  technique  of  habeas 
corpus. 

This  bill,  because  of  complaints  and  concerns  raised  by  the 
people  who  deal  in  this  question  of  asylum,  guarantees — guaran- 
tees, not  allows;  you  use  the  term  "allows"— the  term  precisely  is 
"guarantee"— a  right  of  review  at  the  circuit  court  of  everything 
which  has  gone  before  administratively. 

The  gentleman  seems  to  suggest  that  what  we  have  done  is  re- 
strict current  law.  We  have  so  much  expanded  current  law  on  the 
subject  of  asylum  and  the  guarantees  of  it,  and  there  are  a  lot  of 
people  who  are  against  our  bill  because  of  this  particular  section. 
They  say  we  have  gone  too  far;  we  are  not  going  to  really  cure  the 
problem. 

I  did  not  want  to  interrupt  the  gentleman,  but  that  part  about 
saying  this  is  court-stripping  is  not,  in  my  judgment,  honestly  very 
accurate. 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  Well,  I  can  understand  the  gentleman's  feeling. 
And  had  he,  as  I  have,  talked  with  Haitian  refugees  who  are  with- 
out class-action-suit  capability  and  without  any  understanding  of 
what  their  rights  are  under  our  law,  in  my  view 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  We  may  remain  in  dispute  on  this  term.  I  have 
worked  with  the  gentleman's  brother  when  we  did  go  to  Florida  a 
year  ago.  And  the  way  we  drafted  our  bill  originally  is  very  differ- 
ent than  how  it  is  today.  And  it's  different  today  because  of  the  ef- 
fective testimony  like  your  brother's  and  yours  in  the  last  Con- 
gress, which  led  us,  contrary  to  the  original  draft  of  this  bill,  to  the 
position  of  saying,  "You,  as  a  would-be  asylee,  are  guaranteed — 
guaranteed — the  right  of  review  in  a  judicial  setting  of  the  ques- 
tions raised  below." 

The  fact  there  have  been  only  two  or  three  cases  in  the  circuit 
court  to  date  is  because  that  system  just  does  not  work  today.  Now 


18-556    O— S.-^ 15 


218 

you  have  to  get  to  the  circuit  court  by  appeal  from  the  district 
courts,  so  it  would  assume  there  are  not  many  appeals  to  the  cir- 
cuit courts.  But  in  our  bill  you'd  get  to  the  circuit  court  automati- 
cally if  you  wanted  to  have  a  judicial  review  of  administrative 
action. 

But  at  any  rate,  you  can  proceed.  We  will  go  back  to  this  at  some 
later  time. 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  Well,  as  I  have  indicated,  this  provision  is  clearly 
a  direct  response  to  the  success  of  the  Haitian  plaintiffs  in  the  case 
of  the  Haitian  Refugee  Center  vs.  Smith.  Had  there  been  a  commit- 
ment to  and  a  system  capable  of  providing  genuine  due  process 
consistent  with  law  and  the  Constitution,  the  5,000  plaintiffs 
wouldn't  have  been  forced  to  seek  redress  in  the  Federal  district 
court.  If  the  executive  branch  conforms  to  the  requirements  of  the 
law  in  adjudicating  applications  for  asylum,  there  will  be  no  judi- 
cial intervention.  This  is  the  lesson,  I  think,  of  the  Haitian  refu- 
gees. 

I  have  in  the  last  8  months  traveled  twice,  for  example,  on  fact- 
finding missions  to  Haiti  to  assess  the  human  rights  and  economic 
situation  in  Haiti.  I  can  attest  that  the  human  rights  situation  in 
Haiti  is  dire.  In  November  1981,  the  Congressional  Black  Caucus 
task  force  on  Haitian  refugees  determined  that  we  could  not 
change  what  we  believe  to  be  our  country's  inhumane  and  racist 
policies  towards  Haitian  refugees  in  time  to  prevent  tragedies  such 
as  we  saw  played  out  on  the  shores  of  Florida  in  the  fall  of  1981. 
There  were  some  40  dead  bodies  that  were  deposited  on  the  shore. 

Mr.  Hall.  Will  the  gentleman  yield? 

Are  you  saying  that  the  United  States  of  America  people  killed 
those  40  people? 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  No,  not  at  all. 

Mr.  Hall.  You  prefaced  it  by  stating  "our  country's  inhumane 
and  racist  policies  toward  Haitian  refugees."  You  say  the  40  people 
that  washed  ashore — you're  not  saying  we  were  responsible  for 
that,  are  you? 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  No,  the  key  phrase  there  was  that  we  couldn't 
wait  until  we  deal  with  what  we  believe  to  be  discriminatory  prac- 
tices with  respect  to  our  own  INS  to  deal  with  the  situation  in 
Haiti  where  people  are  so  desperate  that  they  would  risk  coming 
here  in  shabby  boats  and  the  like  that  crack  up  and  end  up  with 
people  dying  at  sea,  and  in  this  instance,  in  the  fall,  if  you  recall, 
they  died  within  eyesight  of  the  shores  and  were  washed  up. 

It  was  with  that  in  mind  that  Congresswoman  Shirley  Chisholm 
and  I  determined  to  have  a  face-to-face  dialog  with  President  Duva- 
lier  and  other  members  of  the  Government  of  Haiti  on  the  issues  of 
human  rights  and  economic  development  for  and  with  the  people  of 
Haiti. 

The  situation  there  of  human  rights  is  distressing.  It's  bad.  There 
exist  no  human  rights  in  Haiti  such  as  we  know  them  in  the 
United  States.  We  have  no  assurance  that  all  of  the  returnees  who 
have  been  returned  forcibly  from  our  country  to  Haiti  remain  safe, 
free,  and  well.  The  Department  of  State  will  certify  that  all  is  well, 
but  in  fact  what  they  are  certifying  is  that  only  the  people  they 
have  been  able  to  locate  and  interview  have  indicated  that  they  are 
well  and  have  not  complained  of  harassment.  They  have  been 


219 

unable  to  locate  many  returnees  and  their  status  is  far  from  cer- 
tain. 

It  is  my  position  and  the  position  of  the  Congressional  Black 
Caucus  task  force  on  Haitian  refugees  that  the  human  rights  situa- 
tion in  Haiti  is  such  that  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  a  signifi- 
cant number  of  Haitian  refugees  would  in  fact  meet  the  legal  defi- 
nition of  asylee  if  they  were  or  had  been  afforded  genuine  due  proc- 

ess. 

Second,  I  am  also  deeply  troubled  by  the  provision  that  would 
permit  the  summary  exclusion  of  asylum  claimants  attempting  to 
enter  the  United  States  if  they  are  unable  to  demonstrate  immedi- 
ately a  bona  fide  claim  to  asylum.  Aliens  with  valid  claims  to 
asylum,  but  without  an  understanding  of  our  laws  or  an  opportuni- 
ty to  obtain  the  assistance  of  legal  counsel,  could  be  summarily  ex- 
cluded from  entry  and  forcibly  returned  to  possibly  face  persecu- 
tion and  grave  personal  danger.  The  practice  of  summary  exclusion 
in  such  cases  violates  our  fundamental  traditions  of  due  process 
and  that  of  providing  asylum  for  those  feeling  injustice  and  perse- 
cution, as  well  as  our  obligations  of  nonrefoulement  under  interna- 
tional law,  article  33  of  the  U.N.  Convention  on  the  Status  of  Refu- 
gees. 

I  am  strongly  opposed  to  the  concept  of  summary  exclusion. 
Since  1903  the  law  has  provided  a  statutory  right  to  a  hearing 
before  an  immigration  judge  for  persons  seeking  to  enter  the 
United  States  Summary  exclusion  would  be  a  radical  departure 
from  this  time-tested  commitment  to  procedural  fairness. 

Third,  with  reference  to  the  provision  that  will  provide  for  legal- 
ization, I  congratulate  the  chairman  and  the  subcommittee  for 
structuring  this  provision  in  the  legislation.  I  think  it  is  a  rational, 
fair,  realistic,  and  compassionate  way  to  deal  with  the  problem  of 
an  underground  population. 

However,  the  proposed  legislation  would  arbitrarily  limit  eligibil- 
ity for  legalization  to  those  undocumented  persons  arriving  in  the 
United  States  before  January  1,  1980,  or  January  1,  1981,  for 
Cubans  and  Haitians  known  to  INS.  I  believe  that  it  is  more  practi- 
cal and  certainly  more  equitable  to  include  in  the  legalization  pro- 
gram all  otherwise  eligible  undocumented  aliens  who  arrived  in 
the  United  States  before  January  1,  1982.  In  addition  to  a  general 
concern  that  all  undocumented  aliens  be  equally  protected  under 
the  legalization  program,  extension  of  the  legalization  cutoff  date  is 
necessary  to  effectively  correct  the  very  serious  problems  that  have 
resulted  from  the  administration's  highly  controversial  program  of 
prolonged  mass  detention  of  the  Haitian  boat  people  which  began 
in  May  1981. 

I  recognize  the  political  difficulties  involved  in  this  matter,  but  I 
feel  compelled  to  raise  questions  like:  What  will  we  do  with  those 
entrants  who  have  entered  since  January  1,  1980?  Are  we  to 
engage  in  mass  deportation  programs?  What  impact  would  this 
have  on  our  communities? 

Fourth,  I  would  like  to  make  some  comments  on  the  provision  for 
employer  sanctions.  Mr.  Chairman,  as  is  the  case  with  many  of  our 
colleagues,  I  share  the  concern  that  the  implementation  of  an  em- 
ployer sanctions  program  will  have  an  inherent  potential  for  dis- 
crimination. Without  taking  a  lot  of  time,  because  this  issue  was 


220 

fully  ventilated  in  a  debate  which  took  place  during  the  last  Con- 
gress on  December  16,  17,  and  18,  I  would  simply  say  that  this 
problem  may  be  alleviated,  and  it  might  get  some  further  consider- 
ation within  the  black  and  Hispanic  communities  if  the  subcommit- 
tee, the  committee,  and  indeed  our  colleagues  throughout  the 
House,  would  give  more  serious  consideration  to  the  very  construc- 
tive and,  I  believe,  necessary  amendments  offered  by  the  dean  of 
the  Congressional  Black  Caucus,  Congressman  Augustus  Hawkins. 
I  would  also  state,  in  discussing  this  provision,  that  I  have  the 
same  concern  with  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service's 
ability  to  administer  this  enforcement  provision  in  an  efficient, 
fair,  and  nondiscriminatory  manner. 

Given  these  concerns,  I  ask  your  consideration  for  including  in 
this  provision  a  sunset  requirement  which  would  provide  for  the 
evaluation  of  employer  sanctions  and  reenactment  by  Congress 
based  upon  your  experience. 

Mr.  Chairman,  in  conclusion,  I  want  to  thank  you  and  the  other 
members  of  the  subcommittee  for  inviting  me  to  testify.  I  think  it 
is  representative  of  the  way  the  subcommittee  has  conducted  itself 
during  the  course  of  undertaking  this  monumental  task  of  provid- 
ing reform  and  control  of  our  immigration  policy.  I  look  forward  to 
continued  dialog  with  the  chairman  and  other  members  of  the  sub- 
committee as  we  seek  to  forge  some  solution  to  a  very  difficult 
problem.  I  do  not  consider  my  testimony  as  a  position  written  in 
concrete,  for  I  see  it  merely  as  the  beginning  of  a  dialog.  Our  task 
is  to  shape  in  the  98th  Congress  legislation  that  is  neither  mean, 
nativist,  nor  racist  and,  ultimately,  is  workable. 

Thank  you. 

[The  complete  statement  follows:] 

Testimony  of  Hon.  Walter  E.  Fauntroy,  Member  of  Congress,  and  Chairperson 
OF  THE  Congressional  Black  Caucus  Task  Force  on  Haitian  Refugees 

introduction 

Good  morning,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  want  to  thank  you  and  the  other  distinguished 
Members  for  inviting  me  to  appear  before  the  Subcommittee  to  offer  testimony  on 
H.R.  1510,  the  Immigration  Reform  and  Control  Act  of  1983.  I  also  want  to  formally 
thank  you  and  the  staff  of  the  Subcommittee  for  the  willingness  to  engage  in  mean- 
ingful dialogue  and  to  consider  the  concerns  which  other  Members  and  I  have  ex- 
pressed. 

I  appear  before  you  carrying  the  portfolio  of  the  Chair  of  the  Congressional  Black 
Caucus  Task  Force  on  Haitian  Refugees.  I  also  appear  before  you  as  a  Member  of 
Congress  whose  constituency  includes  many  peoples  representative  of  the  "New  Im- 
migration", who,  have  come  to  our  country  from  the  Caribbean,  Africa,  and  Central 
America  and  are  contributing  to  our  community. 

structuring  the  debate 
Scapegoating  and  the  economic  crisis 

Before  discussing  my  reservations  to  specific  provisions  of  H.R.  1510,  I  would  like 
to  stress  two  points  which  for  me  serve  to  frame  the  issues  embodied  in  the  legisla- 
tion before  the  Subcommittee.  First,  the  debate  on  this  question  must  be  free  of 
scapegoating  and  acrimony  that  somehow  links  the  crisis  confronting  our  economy 
with  the  phenomena  of  immigration  and  refugee  policy.  I  am  quite  aware  that  there 
are  some  pressures  on  the  labor  market  resulting  from  the  presence  of  undocument- 
ed entrants.  I  am  also  acutely  aware  of  the  fact  that  these  entrants  are  easily  ex- 
ploited and  victimized. 

Needless  to  say,  however,  our  economic  crisis  will  not  be  solved  in  any  significant 
way  by  the  resolution  of  the  issues  before  this  Subcommittee.  This  is  not  a  jobs  bill! 


221 

Our  focus  should  be  clearly  on  it  as  an  immigration  issue,  and  we  should  address  it 
in  that  context. 

Our  economic  problems  are  profound,  involving  issues  basic  to  the  competitive- 
ness of  our  economic  system  and  the  solution  to  the  problem  of  unemployment  re- 
quires fiscal  and  monetary  policies  that  affect  the  labor  market  and  work  to  revital- 
ize our  industrial  base.  Black  leadership  will  not  be  diverted  by  the  potential  for 
scapegoating  in  a  national  debate  on  immigration,  but  will  work  to  bring  together  a 
coalition  of  conscience  that  will  pass  genuine  job  creation  legislation. 

THE  MANAGEMENT  SITUATION  OF  INS 

My  second  point  before  I  address  the  proposals  of  H.R.  1510  is  the  present  and 
past  management  neglect,  underfunding,  and  understaffing  of  the  Immigration  and 
Naturalization  Service.  I.N.S.  is  unable  to  undertake  the  enforcement  of  existing 
laws  in  a  timely  and  efficient  manner.  Additional  duties  and  responsibilities  ema- 
nating from  the  passage  of  this  bill  would  greatly  exacerbate  an  already  chaotic  sit- 
uation. In  the  Washington  D.C.  Area  District  Office,  which  is  considered  the  flag- 
ship office  of  the  Service,  there  is  a  serious  lack  of  enough  competent  and  well- 
trained  staff.  The  staff  is  overworked  and  in  spite  of  their  dedicated  attempts  to  per- 
form their  duties  and  to  be  both  efficient  and  courteous  to  the  public,  they  are 
simply  overwhelmed  by  the  workload.  Just  to  cite  one  statistic:  it  takes  12  months 
to  3  years  to  get  an  application  for  naturalization  processed.  The  system  lacks  the 
personnel  and  management  structure  necessary  for  carrying  out  the  provisions  of 
H.R.  1510.  This  problem  is  paramount  and  its  correction  would  involve  a  significant 
allocation  of  additional  resources  to  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service.  I 
would  submit  that  the  allocation  of  additional  resources  should  precede  the  under- 
taking of  any  additional  responsibilities  by  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization 
Service. 

I  wish  also  to  stress,  before  I  begin  to  discuss  specific  provisions  of  H.R.  1510,  my 
concern  that  there  are  no  Black  or  Hispanic  employees  at  the  senior  executive 
policy-making  level  of  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service.  This  points  to 
the  urgent  need  for  affirmative  action  and  for  making  the  Service  more  representa- 
tive of  the  public  and  the  clientele  which  is  serves. 

Today,  I  wish  to  speak  to  four  provisions  of  H.R.  1510  which  gravely  concern  me 
and  require  the  most  careful  consideration. 

The  four  provisions  are:  Access  to  judicial  review  for  asylum  applicants;  summary 
exclusion;  legalization;  and  employer  sanctions. 

ACCESS  TO  JUDICIAL  REVIEW 

First,  with  respect  to  access  to  judicial  review,  I  want  to  commend  you  Mr.  Chair- 
man and  the  Subcommittee  for  structuring  a  more  independent  process  for  adjudi- 
cating asylum  claims.  I  think  the  system  that  is  recommended  in  this  legislation  is 
a  positive  step  forward  and  should  be  supported.  However,  I  must  state  my  firm  op- 
position to  a  provision  in  the  section  dealing  with  asylum  that  undermines  funda- 
mental due  process  by  removing  the  role  of  the  Federal  District  Courts  in  reviewing 
applications  for  asylum. 

As  I  read  the  section,  that  concerns  judicial  review  and  the  relevant  Committee 
on  the  Judiciary  report  language,  asylum  applicants  would  be  denied  access  to  the 
Federal  District  Courts  for  review  of  the  lawfulness  and  constitutionality  of  I.N.S. 
processing  of  asylum  claims.  I  quote  from  the  Committee  Report,  97-890,  page  50: 

"The  Committee  Amendment,  however,  makes  clear  that  regardless  of  whether  or 
not  the  alien  is  in  custody,  the  proper  and  sole  avenue  of  review  is  through  the  cir- 
cuit courts. 

"The  Committee  is  concerned  with  the  reasoning  of  the  Smith  Court  and  thus  has 
adopted  provisions  in  this  legislation  to  insure  that  no  district  court  shall  have  juris- 
diction under  28  U.S.C.  Section  1331,  and  8  U.S.C.  Section  1329  or  any  other  provi- 
sion of  law  to  hear  cases  involving  final  orders  of  deportation  or  exclusion. 

"This  prohibition  on  premature  petitioning  of  the  courts  encompasses  not  only 
final  orders  denying  the  asylum  applications,  but  also  any  actions  or  inactions  by 
the  Service  or  the  administrative  law  judges,  or  the  U.S.I.B.,  Or  any  other  party 
which  even  tangentially  relates  to  the  manner  in  which  the  asylum  process  is  car- 
ried forth." 

My  overriding  concern  is  that  the  proposed  legislation  will  restrict  the  right  of  all 
asylum  claimants  to  judicial  review  of  administrative  agency  action.  Judicial  review 
such  as  that  provided  in  the  case  of  the  Haitian  Refugee  Center  v.  Smith  is  mandat- 
ed not  only  because  of  domestic  and  international  legal  norms,  but  most  important- 


222 

ly  because  it  is  essential  to  our  nation's  sense  of  fundamental  justice  and  fairness; 
and  above  all,  it  is  an  indispensable  remedy  within  our  system  of  laws. 

Our  constitutional  system  of  checks  and  balances  demands  that  every  governmen- 
tal action  or  administrative  act  be  subject  to  a  degree  of  judicial  scrutiny,  and  it  is 
fundamentally  incompatible  with  our  system  of  government  for  a  department  of  the 
Executive  branch  of  government  to  be  the  sole  arbitrator  of  its  own  acts.  Judicial 
scrutiny  is  especially  crucial  in  the  context  of  claims  for  political  asylum  because 
the  stakes  are  so  very  high,  and  miscarriages  of  justice  may  well  have  grave  conse- 
quences that  can  never  be  corrected.  Federal  court  jurisdiction  over  final  decisions 
of  the  Immigration  Service  must  be  maintained  not  only  to  protect  refugees  seeking 
asylum  in  the  United  States,  but  also  because  it  is  a  fundamental  right  of  all  per- 
sons residing  within  our  country. 

It  is  true  H.R.1510  allows  individuals  access  to  the  Federal  Circuit  Courts  of 
Appeal.  This  is  not  adequate.  In  the  last  two  years  the  Circuit  Courts  of  Appeals 
have  considered  only  twelve  cases  involving  political  asylum.  This  reflects,  among 
other  things,  the  reality  that  most  individual  asylum  applicants  simply  do  not  have 
the  resources  or  access  to  lawyers  specializing  in  immigration  law  and  refugee  mat- 
ters. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  restrictions  on  Judicial  Review  contained  in  H.R.  1510  repre- 
sent yet  another  court  stripping  effort  hostile  to  the  principle  of  the  rule  of  law. 
This  proposal  is  clearly  a  direct  response  to  the  success  of  Haitian  plaintiffs  in  the 
case  of  the  Haitian  Refugee  Center  v.  Smith.  Had  there  been  a  commitment  to  and  a 
system  capable  off  providing  genuine  due  process  consistent  with  law  and  the  Con- 
stitution, the  5,000  plaintiffs  wouldn't  have  been  forced  to  seek  redress  in  the  Feder- 
al District  Court.  If  the  Executive  Branch  conforms  to  the  requirements  of  the  law 
in  adjudicating  asylum  applications,  there  will  be  no  judicial  intervention.  This  is 
the  lesson  of  the  Haitian  Refugees. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  in  the  last  eight  months  traveled  twice  on  fact-finding  mis- 
sions to  Haiti  to  assess  the  human  rights  and  economic  situation  in  Haiti.  I  can 
attest  that  the  human  rights  situation  in  Haiti  is  dire.  In  November  1981,  the  Con- 
gressional Black  Caucus  Task  Force  on  Haitian  Refugees  determined  that  we  could 
not  change  what  we  believe  to  be  our  country's  inhumane  and  racist  policies  toward 
Haitian  refugees  in  time  to  prevent  tragedies  such  as  we  saw  played  out  on  the 
shores  of  Florida  in  the  Fall  of  1981.  It  was  with  that  in  mind  that  Congresswoman 
Shirley  Chisholm  and  I  determined  to  have  a  face-to-face  dialogue  with  President 
Duvalier  and  other  members  of  the  Government  of  Haiti  on  the  issues  of  human 
rights  and  economic  development  for  and  with  the  Haitian  people. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  situation  of  human  rights  in  Haiti  is  most  distressing.  It  is 
bad.  There  exist  no  human  rights  such  as  we  know  them,  in  Haiti.  We  have  no  as- 
surances that  all  of  the  returnees  who  have  been  returned  forcibly  from  our  country 
to  Haiti  remain  safe,  free  and  well.  The  Department  of  State  will  certify  that  all  is 
well,  but  in  fact  what  they  are  certifying  is  that  only  the  people  they  have  been  able 
to  locate  and  interview  have  indicated  that  they  are  "well"  and  have  not  "com- 
plained of  harassment."  They  have  been  unable  to  locate  many  returnees  and  their 
status  is  far  from  certain.  It  is  my  position  and  the  position  of  the  Congressional 
Black  Caucus  Task  Force  on  Haitian  Refugees  that  the  human  rights  situation  in 
Haiti  is  such  that  it  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  a  significant  number  of  Haitian 
refugees  would  in  fact  meet  the  legal  definition  of  asylee  if  they  were  or  had  been 
afforded  genuine  due  process. 

SUMMARY  EXCLUSION 

Second,  I  am  also  deeply  troubled  by  the  provision  that  would  permit  the  "sum- 
mary exclusion"  of  asylum  claimants  attempting  to  enter  the  United  States  if  they 
are  unable  to  demonstrate  immediately  a  bona  fide  claim  to  asylum.  Aliens  with 
valid  claims  to  asylum,  but  without  an  understanding  of  our  laws  or  an  opportunity 
to  obtain  the  assistance  of  legal  counsel,  could  be  summarily  excluded  from  entry 
and  forcibly  returned  to  possibly  face  persecution  and  grave  personal  danger.  The 
practice  of  summary  exclusion  in  such  cases  violates  our  fundamental  traditions  of 
due  process  and  that  of  providing  asylum  for  those  fleeing  injustice  and  persecution, 
as  well  as  our  obligations  of  non-refoulement  under  international  laws  f  Article  33  of 
the  U.N.  Convention  on  the  Status  of  Refugees). 

I  am  strongly  opposed  to  the  concept  of  summary  exclusion.  Since  1903  the  law 
has  provided  a  statutory  right  to  a  hearing  before  an  immigration  judge  for  persons 
seeking  to  enter  the  United  States.  Summary  exclusion  would  be  a  radical  depar- 
ture from  this  time  tested  commitment  to  procedural  fairness. 


223 

LEGALIZATION 

Third,  with  reference  to  the  provision  that  will  provide  for  legalization,  I  con- 
gratulate the  Chairman  and  the  Subcommittee  for  structuring  this  provision  in  the 
legislation.  I  think  it  is  a  rational,  fair,  realistic,  and  compassionate  way  to  deal 
with  the  problem  of  an  "underground"  population. 

However,  the  proposed  legislation  would  arbitrarily  limit  eligibility  for  legaliza- 
tion to  those  undocumented  persons  arriving  in  the  United  States  before  January  1, 
1980,  or  January  1,  1981  for  Cubans  and  Haitians  "known  to  I.N.S."  I  believe  that  it 
is  more  practical  and  certainly  more  equitable  to  include  in  the  legalization  pro- 
gram all  otherwise  eligible  undocumented  aliens  who  arrive^  in  the  United  States 
before  January  1,  1982.  In  addition  to  a  general  concern  that  all  undocumented 
aliens  be  equally  protected  under  the  legalization  program,  extension  of  the  legaliza- 
tion "cut-off  date  is  necessary  to  effectively  correct  the  very  serious  problems  that 
have  resulted  from  the  Administration's  highly  controversial  program  of  prolonged 
mass  detention  of  the  Haitian  "boat  people"  which  began  in  May,  1981. 

I  recognize  the  political  difficulties  involved  in  this  matter,  but  I  feel  compelled  to 
raise  questions  like:  "What  will  we  do  with  those  entrants  who  have  entered  since 
January  1,  1980?  Are  we  to  engage  in  mass  deportation  programs?  What  impact 
would  this  have  on  our  communities?" 

EMPLOYER  SANCTIONS 

Fourth,  I  would  like  to  make  some  comments  on  the  provision  for  employer  sanc- 
tions. Mr.  Chairman,  as  is  the  case  with  many  of  our  colleagues,  I  share  the  concern 
that  the  implementation  of  an  employer  sanctions  program  will  have  an  inherent 
potential  for  discrimination.  Without  taking  a  lot  of  time,  because  this  issue  was 
fully  ventilated  in  a  debate  which  took  place  during  the  last  Congress  on  December 
16,  17,  and  18,  I  would  simply  say  that  this  problem  may  be  alleviated,  and  it  might 
get  some  further  consideration  within  the  Black  and  Hispanic  communities  if  the 
Subcommittee,  the  Committee,  and  indeed  our  Colleagues  throughout  the  House 
would  give  more  serious  consideration  to  the  very  constructive  and,  I  believe,  neces- 
sary amendments  offered  by  the  Dean  of  the  Congressional  Black  Caucus,  Congress- 
man Augustus  Hawkins.  I  would  also  state,  in  discussing  this  provision,  that  I  have 
the  same  concern  with  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service's  ability  to  ad- 
minister this  enforcement  provision  in  an  efficient,  fair,  and  nondiscriminatory 
manner. 

Given  these  concerns,  I  ask  your  consideration  for  including  in  this  provision  a 
sunset  requirement  which  would  provide  for  the  evaluation  of  employer  sanctions 
and  reenactment  by  Congress  based  upon  experience. 

CONCLUSION 

Mr.  Chairman,  in  conclusion,  I  want  to  thank  you  and  the  other  members  of  the 
Subcommittee  for  inviting  me  to  testify.  I  think  it  is  representative  of  the  way  the 
Subcommittee  has  conducted  itself  during  the  course  of  undertaking  this  monumen- 
tal task  of  providing  reform  and  control  of  our  immigration  policy.  I  look  forward  to 
continued  dialogue  with  the  Chairman  and  other  members  of  the  Subcommittee  as 
we  seek  to  forge  some  solution  to  a  very  difficult  problem.  I  do  not  consider  my  tes- 
timony as  a  position  written  in  concrete,  for  I  see  it  merely  as  the  beginning  of  a 
dialogue.  Our  task  is  to  shape  in  the  98th  Congress  legislation  that  is  neither  mean, 
nativist,  nor  racist  and,  ultimately,  is  workable. 

Thank  you! 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  will  yield  myself  5  minutes. 

Let  me  thank  the  gentleman  for  that  excellent  testimony  which 
will  certainly  be  looked  at  by  all  of  us.  And  let  me  ask  the  gentle- 
man just  a  couple  of  very  quick  questions. 

On  the  bottom  of  your  page  9  you  talk  about  adding  a  sunset  re- 
quirement to  employer  sanctions.  Would  the  gentleman  and  would 
the  Black  Caucus  support  employer  sanctions  were  it  to  be 
sunsetted? 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  I  think  with  the  kinds  of  protections  against  dis- 
crimination that  Mr.  Hawkins  has  suggested  in  his  amendments 
with  which  you  are  familiar,  we  would  support  that,  and  on  the 


224 

strength  of  the  view  that  it  would  give  us  an  opportunity  to  reeval- 
uate and  see  if  in  fact  it  would  accomplish  the  end 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  That  poses  a  problem  because  Mr.  Hawkins' 
amendment  got  beat  by  over  100  votes,  the  first  of  his  series  of 
amendments,  which  means  that  even  with  the  changed  composition 
in  the  House  of  the  98th  Congress,  his  amendments  probably  do 
not  have  support  from  within  the  total  House. 

A  bill  crafted  like  ours,  with  perhaps  further  protections  on  the 
discrimination  feature,  worked  on  with  Congressman  Frank  and 
others,  and  with  the  sunset,  do  you  think  there  is  a  chance  that 
you  would  support  that? 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  Well,  again,  I  can't  speak  for  the  entire  caucus 
on  that. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  And  you  say  you  are  not  set  in  concrete.  I  would 
appreciate  it  if  you  would,  on  behalf  of  the  caucus,  take  that  back. 
I  think  our  bona  fides  in  trying  to  seek  a  nondiscriminatory  em- 
ployer sanctions  is  spread  upon  the  record  for  the  last  2  years.  Our 
blood  is  all  over  the  floor  of  this  room  and  the  floor  of  the  House, 
trying  to  fmd  just  such  an  elusive  goal. 

But  I  would  appreciate  it  if  you  would  take  that  back. 

Second,  on  the  bottom  of  your  page  8,  you  talk  about  those  en- 
trants who  have  come  after  January  1,  1980,  which  would  have 
been  the  cut-off  date. 

When  you  use  the  term  "entrants,"  those  people  who  came  from 
Haiti  before  January  1  1981,  which  was  the  date  we  used  in  our 
bill,  are  entrants.  But  when  you  use  the  term  "entrants,"  it  is  as  if 
they  were  part  of  that  class  which  was  called  "Cuban-Haitian  en- 
trants, status  pending." 

Now,  all  of  the  "Cuban-Haitian  entrants,  status  pending"  people, 
and  upped  a  little  bit  to  January  1,  1981,  are  affected  by  our  bill 
positively,  because  they  are  included  in  our  legalization  formula. 
You  were  here  in  the  room  when  Mr.  Daub  held  forth  with  the 
gentleman  from  California  in  a  discussion  about  using  these  regis- 
try dates.  No  matter  what  date  you  use,  Walter,  at  some  point  the 
gate  clangs  and  there  is  going  to  be  someone  inevitably  coming  in 
afterwards. 

So  whatever  date  we  pick,  we  have  to  grit  our  teeth  and  say  ^ye 
are  never  going  to  be  so  up  to  date  that  somebody  does  not  come  in 
after  the  date.  So  that  somebody  who  is  here,  whether  those  who 
come  after  1980,  after  1981,  after  1982,  is  going  to  have  to  be  looked 
at  carefully,  kindly,  but  thoroughly.  For  the  point  of  it  is,  if  they 
cannot  stay,  they  are  going  to  have  to  go  back  home. 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  I'm  just  trying  to  narrow  the  workload. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  One  last  question  I  would  ask  you:  You  have  been 
to  Haiti  twice  and  followed  the  situation  carefully.  On  your  page  6 
you  talk  about,  "They" — meaning  the  State  Department — "have 
been  unable  to  locate  many  returnees,"  and  so  forth. 

Is  the  caucus  able  to  monitor  anjrthing  about  the  returnees,  and 
do  you  have  any  more  recent  information  about  their  whereabouts 
and  about  their  well-being? 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  Not  on  a  broad  basis.  We  have  talked  with  pris- 
oners and  got  accounts  of  people  who  upon  return  have  had  to  go 
into  hiding.  But  there  is  no  way  we  can  quantitatively  or  qualita- 
tively document  that  kind  of  thing. 


225 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  thank  the  gentleman.  My  time  has  expired. 

The  gentleman  from  Texas  is  recognized. 

Mr.  Hall.  You  always  raise  some  interesting  points  in  your  testi- 
mony. You  said  that  you  and  Shirley  had  a  face-to-face  contact 
with  President  Duvalier.  If  it  is  proper  to  ask  this  question,  Did 
you  get  any  information  from  that  face-to-face  contact  that  the 
country  of  Haiti  would  be  willing  to  work  in  any  way  with  the 
United  States  in  solving  some  of  its  human  rights  problems  and 
economic  development  problems  in  that  country  dealing  with  the 
Haitian  people? 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  We  certainly  got  that  indication,  and  it  is  not 
only  a  response  to  our  outrage  at  what  we  feel  to  be  the  despera- 
tion with  which  people  flee  Haiti,  but  also  responsive  to  the  Inter- 
national Monetary  Fund  requirements  of  being  placed  upon  them 
and  their  need  for  aid. 

We  have  been  saying  we  are  prepared  to  work  for  meaningful  aid 
and  trade,  but  not  without  a  serious  effort  on  their  part  to  elimi- 
nate the  human  rights  violations  that  have  been  so  well  document- 
ed over  the  years. 

Mr.  Hall.  Do  you  have  any  estimates  or  numbers  as  to  the 
number  of  returnees  that  have  been  returned  from  our  country  to 
Haiti? 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  I  cannot  give  you  that,  unfortunately.  I  will  see  if 
we  have  access  to  that  and  provide  you  an  estimate. 

Of  course,  there  is  cooperation  between  the  Haitian  Government 
and  the  United  States  now,  as  you  know,  with  our  interdiction  pro- 

Mr.  Hall.  Well,  the  President  of  Haiti  has  not  changed  his  posi- 
tion greatly  toward  his  own  people,  has  he,  in  the  last  several 
months? 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  Well,  we  have  seen  evidences  of  a  disposition  to 
change.  For  example,  on  last  April  22  he  announced  for  the  first 
time  in  his  presidency  for  life  that  there  would  be  local  elections. 
And  they  were  originally  scheduled  on  March  9  but  the  Pope's  visit 
there  has  delayed  that,  but  he  has  promised  those  elections  in 
April  of  1983.  And  we  intend  to  monitor  those  elections  very  care- 
fully to  see  if  there  is  any  evidence  that  change  is  on  the  horizon. 

Mr.  Hall.  But  the  only  candidates  that  have  come  forth  up  to 
now  are  his  candidates,  aren't  they? 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  No;  that  is  not  true.  I  have  talked  with  potential 
candidates  who  are  not  perceived  to  be  Duvalierists.  Yet,  I  remain 
concerned  that,  given  the  regulations  that  have  been  formulated, 
independent  candidates  may  not  have  a  fair  chance  at  winning 
elections.  And  I'm  watching  it  very  carefully. 

Mr.  Hall.  Do  you  know  how  many  Haitians  are  still  attempting 
to  come  into  the  United  States?  Are  there  any  figures  that  are 
available  to  you  that  you  could  make  available  to  this  committee? 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  I  cannot,  but  I  could  suggest  to  the  gentleman 
that  you  contact  the  Coast  Guard  and  possibly  the  State  Depart- 
ment. They  could  get  you  the  interdiction  figures. 

Mr.  Hall.  Is  it  your  understanding  that  at  this  time  those  who 
are  being  returned— I  gather  from  your  testimony  that  we  know 
some  are  there  safe,  free,  and  well,  but  we  don't  have  the  informa- 
tion that  all  of  those  people  have  returned  in  that  same  status. 


226 

Is  it  your  position  that  it  should  be  the  responsibility  of  the  U.S. 
Government  to  develop  more  fully  as  to  whether  or  not  those 
people  who  have  returned,  all  of  them,  are  safe  and  well?  Do  we 
have  the  right  as  a  country — although  we  know  that  it  should  be 
improved,  the  human  rights  situation  in  that  country  and  others — 
do  we  have  the  right  to  go  into  that  country — "we"  being  the  U.S. 
Government — with  whatever  method  we  may  use,  and  make  that 
determination  and  try  to  write  a  bill  here  in  the  Congress  based  on 
what  they  are  doing  there  about  their  own  human  rights  internal- 
ly? 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  I  think  that  we  have  a  responsibility  to  fairly 

judge  a  claim  of  a  person  who  comes  to  our  shores  for  political 
asylum.  And  if  we  are  to  fairly  judge  that,  we  ought  to  gain  as 
much  information  as  we  can.  And  we  do  that  with  respect  to  East- 
ern Europe  and  Russia. 

Mr.  Hall.  Don't  you  think  the  majority  of  those  people,  Walter, 
who  come  here  from  Haiti  are  going  to  know  when  they  come,  from 
the  press  and  whatever,  that  if  they  say  they  are  coming  here  for 
political  asylum  they  automatically  get  a  hearing? 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  When  you  say  they  are  going  to  know  from  the 
press 

Mr.  Hall.  Not  the  president  and  press  down  there,  but  don't  you 
think  the  grapevine  will  give  those  people  sufficient  knowledge  to 
know  that  when  they  come  to  these  shores,  if  they  are  accosted  or 
stopped  by  a  border  patrol  and  they  tell  that  person,  "We  are  here 
for  political  asylum,"  whatever  method  they  tell  them,  aren't  they 
going  to  know  they  have  a  legal  right  to  go  into  the  courts  and  test 
it  out — which  will  give  them  time  to  stay  here.  They  cannot  be  de- 
ported while  that's  going  on. 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  If  they  get  here.  They  may  get  in  our  territorial 
waters,  but  if  they  don't  hit  the  land 

Mr.  Hall.  Well,  a  bunch  of  them  got  here.  These  folks  living  in 
Florida  say  it  looks  like  some  Haitians  are  down  there  and  Cubans 
and  the  like.  They  got  here  some  way. 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  What's  your  point? 

Mr.  Hall.  My  point  is:  These  people  who  are  coming  here,  don't 
you  think  when  they  hit  these  shores  they  are  going  to  kno^y  if 
they  tell  that  person,  "We're  here  because  we're  seeking  political 
asylum" 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  Then  they're  going  to  get  a  hearing. 

Mr.  Hall  [continuing].  They're  going  to  get  a  hearing. 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  Yes. 

Mr.  Hall.  Now,  you  don't  know  the  numbers  and  I  don't  either, 
but  don't  you  think  the  vast  majority  of  the  Haitians  and  the 
Cubans  who  come  to  the  Florida  shores  are  going  to  know  before 
they  get  here  that  if  they  say,  "We  want  political  asylum;  we're 
coming  because  of  that,"  they're  going  to  say  that  to  that  officer? 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  True. 

Mr.  Mazzou.  The  gentleman's  time  has  expired.  Thank  you. 

The  gentleman  from  California. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  Thank  you. 

I  also  want  to  echo  the  words  of  the  chairman,  that  we  appreci- 
ate your  testif5ring  here  before  us,  both  individually  and  on  behalf 


227 

of  the  Black  Caucus,  so  we  can  have  your  input  as  we  try  to  perfect 
what  we  had  thought  was  a  pretty  good  bill  last  time. 

I  have  been  one  of  those  who  has  taken  the  INS  to  task  for  not 
doing  enough  in  many  situations  in  the  past,  although  I  have 
always  tried  to  specify  that  Congress  shares  the  blame,  or  probably 
has  more  of  the  blame,  because  we  have  understaffed  them  over 
the  years,  giving  them  too  much  to  do  and  not  enough  to  do  it  with. 

But  I  did  want  to  just  comment  on  the  mention  you  made  that 
the  INS  does  not  have  people  of  minority  background  in  leadership 
positions.  I  think  it's  just  about  the  only  high  government  agency 
that  has  had  a  Hispanic  heading  it.  Leonel  Castillo  was  the  Com- 
missioner of  INS  for  my  first  2  years  here. 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  I  do  recall,  incidentally,  with  great  pleasure  his 
tenure. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  Well,  I  happen  to  think  he  was  really  trying  to  do 
a  good  job.  I  don't  want  to  get  partisan  here,  but  I  don't  think  the 
administration  at  that  time  supported  him.  I  think  they  let  him 
hang  out  there  to  dry  when  he  was  trying  to  do  some  very  good 
things  that  we're  all  trying  to  do. 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  That's  why  we  need  affirmative  action  in  the 
agency. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  Another  thing  is  Joe  Salgedo,  Hispanic,  is  Asso- 
ciate Commissioner  for  Enforcement.  The  Director  of  the  Office  of 
Antismuggling  is  Hispanic,  Umberto  Marino.  Twenty  percent  of 
the  border  patrol  is  Hispanic.  And  I  think  a  slightly  higher  per- 
centage of  that  reflects  the  makeup  of  the  entire  INS. 

I  am  only  familiar  on  the  Hispanic  side  because  in  my  area  it  is 
very  notable  that  that  agency  has  such  a  high  percentage.  I  just 
wanted  to  at  least  mention  it.  In  comparison  with  a  lot  of  other 
agencies,  at  least  from  the  Hispanic  side,  they've  done  a  pretty 
good  of  having  people  in  those  positions,  which  doesn't  mean  they 
couldn't  do  a  better  job. 

I'd  like  to  get  to  the  question  of  the  dates. 

You  asked — and  I  think  it's  a  question  we  have  to  answer — basi- 
cally why  did  we  pick  the  dates  for  a  legalization  program  of  Janu- 
ary 1,  1980,  or  January  1,  1981,  for  Cuban-Haitians. 

Interesting  enough,  it  was  the  Select  Committee  on  Immigration 
Policy,  the  Presidential  Commission,  that  unanimously  recom- 
mended that  no  one  be  eligible  for  legalization  who  was  not  in  the 
United  States  before  January  1,  1980.  It  was  one  of  the  very  few 
things  that  there  was  unanimity  on,  and  that  included  Patricia 
Harris,  Father  Hesburgh  and  others.  And  the  reason  they  did  it 
was  they  recognized  if  we  were  going  to  have  a  legalization  pro- 
gram we  have  to  try  to  fashion  it  in  a  way  that  does  not  unduly 
attract  people,  such  that  they  think,  "As  soon  as  I  get  across  the 
border  there's  going  to  be  another  amnesty  program."  And  they 
made  the  judgment  that  that  was  essentially  the  date  when  serious 
discussion  on  the  Commission  took  place  with  respect  to  the  official 
American  policy  being  one  of  a  large  legalization  program.  And 
that  is  why  they  recommended  it,  because  they  said  it  was  reason- 
able to  assume  that  via  the  grapevine  many  people  would  get  the 
word  and  would  come  across  for  that  purpose. 

That  is  the  rationale  for  their  decision. 


228 

I  guess  I  just  asked  you:  Do  you  think  that  is  a  reasonable  ration- 
ale or  an  insufficient  rationale  for  putting  that  date  forward?  And 
do  you  see  that  there  is  some  problem  that  if  you  bring  the  date 
contemporaneously  up  to  the  date  of  enactment  you  put  the  word 
out  to  people,  "Hey,  just  wait  until  the  next  legalization  is  here 
since  I'm  across  the  border  now." 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  That  is  precisely  why  I  suggested  going  back  to 
January  1,  1982,  and  shortening  the  workload  on  INS  in  their  at- 
tempts to  enforce  it. 

I  do  not  recall  when  the  Commission  reported  relative  to  the 
January  1980  date.  Do  you  recall? 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  The  Commission  adopted  this  recommendation  on 
December  6  or  7,  1980. 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  1980? 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  Yes. 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  So  I  wouldn't  say  that  when  this  bill  passes  and 
becomes  law  in  July  of  1983  that  we  should  go  back  to  January 
1983.  I'd  say  January  of  1982. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  So  there  should  be  some  period  of  time  that  is  rea- 
sonable but  you  think  it  ought  to  be  brought  up  a  little  bit  more 
than  what  we  have  in  the  bill? 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  Yes. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  The  other  was  the  January  1,  1981,  date  for  the 
Cuban-Haitian  entrants.  That  basically  was  because  the  entrants' 
status  that  had  been  granted  that  group  of  people,  which  was  a 
special  status  that  we  came  up  with — we  had  never  seen  it  before 
and  may  never  see  again  in  terms  of  that  particular  status — that 
they  had  been  there  by  that  date,  and  since  then  those  that  have 
come  here  have  come  with  the  knowledge  that  circumstances  have 
changed,  that  we  are  making  an  effort — not  as  President  Carter 
said,  to  open  our  hearts  and  our  arms  to  everyone  that  wanted  to 
come.  Do  you  again  think  we  ought  to  bring  that  date  more  con- 
temporaneously to  the  date  of  enactment? 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  I  do.  I  think  the  larger  the  window,  the  more 
likely  a  person  is  to  feel,  "Gee,  they  won't  detect  me."  But  if  it's  a 
tighter  window  and  they  view  us  as  being  serious  about  this,  people 
who  have  no  legal  basis  for  being  here  would  be  a  little  more  care- 
ful, and  they  would  know  that  the  window,  being  as  narrow  as  it  is, 
they  might  get  caught. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  gentleman's  time  has  expired. 

The  gentleman  from  Florida. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  Thank  you. 

I  certainly  appreciate  the  gentleman's  testimony  this  morning.  I 
respect  him  a  great  deal,  being  chairman  of  another  subcommittee 
I  have  had  the  pleasure  of  serving  on  very  much,  and  know  he  is 
not  only  knowledgeable  in  areas  he  testifies  and  comments  on  but 
he  does  his  homework  and  presents  it  very  well. 

I  have  a  very  grave  concern  about  due  process  myself,  and  my 
concern  is  doublefold.  Perhaps  the  Florida  perspective  that  I  come 
from  has  given  me  that. 

I  am  concerned  with  the  slow  process  of  dealing  with  asylum  and 
the  unfairness  of  it  both  to  the  public  and  to  the  people  who  are 
involved.  My  understanding  from  folks  who  deal  in  the  area  admin- 
istratively now  is  that  just  routinely  it's  2  years  before  we  really 


229 

see  the  point  where  the  process  gets  to  where  you  really  normally 
go  to  court  or  appeal  it  or  whatever,  and  so  forth. 

But  as  a  result  of  the  concern  over  the  due  process  and  the  slow- 
ness, I  drafted  an  amendment  last  time,  which  the  committee  did 
not  adopt,  although  we  had  a  division  vote  on  it,  to  establish  a  sep- 
arate court  independent  of  the  Attorney  General,  an  article  I  court, 
to  deal  with  this  subject,  to  deal  with  asylum,  to  deal  with  exclu- 
sion and  deportation. 

I  don't  know  whether  the  gentleman  is  even  aware  of  that,  but  I 
would  be  very  interested  in  his  feelings  toward  that  and  if  he 
would  be  willing  to  carry  that  idea  back  to  the  Black  Caucus.  I 
plan  to  bring  the  idea  forth  again  and  perhaps  in  the  form  of  an 
amendment. 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  May  I  say  to  the  gentleman,  I'd  certainly  like  to 
look  at  that  specifically.  As  we  indicate  in  our  testimony,  we  are 
happy  to  see  the  independent  process  that  has  been  structured  here 
as  a  step  forward  toward  fair  and  speedy  decisions  on  these  mat- 
ters, and  I  think  that  might  be  something  we  could  support. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  I  would  very  much  appreciate  your  looking  at  it. 
I  have  no  other  questions.  I  yield  back  my  time. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you. 

The  gentleman  from  New  York  wishes  to  question. 

Mr.  Fish.  Thank  you. 

Before  I  arrived  I  understand  that  you  were  critical  of  the  proc- 
ess dealing  with  expedited  exclusion  in  this  legislation,  which  ap- 
pears in  part  C,  section  121,  starting  at  page  21  of  the  bill. 

The  way  it  is  structured  now  is  because  the  full  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee, when  it  considered  this  legislation  last  fall,  adopted  an 
amendment  I  offered  to  the  expedited  exclusion  provision,  with  the 
purpose  of  cranking  in  greater  due  process. 

In  other  words,  we  require  here  that  the  examining  Immigration 
officer,  before  excluding — this  is  the  alien  on  the  beach — an  alien 
without  a  hearing,  must  inform  him  of  his  right  to  have  an  admin- 
istrative law  judge  redetermine  the  conditions  that  govern  the  ex- 
amining officer  in  the  first  section,  that  justify  expedited  exclusion. 

It  does  not  require  the  alien  to  demonstrate  immediately  a  bona 
fide  claim  to  asylum,  which  is  in  your  testimony. 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  Yes. 

Mr.  Fish.  The  relevant  language  relates  to  whether  the  alien  in- 
dicates his  intention  to  apply  for  asylum. 

And  I  ask  you:  In  view  of  these  provisions  which  were  adopted  to 
meet  concerns  such  as  were  expressed  today  about  expedited  exclu- 
sion, haven't  we  met  them? 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  It  is  your  contention  you  don't  require  a  bona 
fide  claim  at  the  point  of  encounter,  and  that  the  officer  in  this 
case  is  obligated  to  inform  the  person  seeking  asylum  of  his  right 
to  due  process. 

Mr.  Fish.  First  of  all,  when  the  Immigration  officer  meets  him 
and  there  is  no  indication  of  intention  to  apply — that  is  one  of  the 
grounds  for  exclusion.  But  then  before  excluding  him,  "The  exam- 
ining officer  shall  inform  the  alien  of  his  right  to  have  an  adminis- 
trative law  judge  redetermine  the  conditions"  that  led  to  the  deter- 
mination which  was  alluded  to.  And  he  has  to  inform  them  of  those 
rights. 


230 

Mr.  Fauntroy.  And  should  he  elect  to  exercise  those  rights,  your 
contention  is  that  the  judicial  review  and  due  process  are  available 
to  him. 

Mr.  Fish  [reading]: 

The  alien  should  not  be  so  excluded  without  a  hearing  until  and  unless  the  ad- 
ministrative law  judge,  after  a  nonadversarial  civil  proceeding  in  which  the  alien 
may  appear  personally,  redetermines  the  alien  meets  the  condition  of  subclauses  (1) 
through  (3). 

I  ask  you  to  take  a  look  at  that,  because  it  went  pretty  far  to  try 
to  accommodate  the  views  of  those  who  were  concerned  about  the 
summary  exclusion  for  someone  who  makes  no  claim  for  asylum, 
has  no  papers,  no  claim  for  citizenship,  and  so  on. 

A  lot  of  people  felt  that  he  had  no  rights  at  all,  and  I  felt  that 
there  should  be  some  review  over  the  Immigration  officer's  find- 
ings, so  we  cranked  it  in  here.  I  wonder  if  it  doesn't  really  meet  the 
concerns  that  you  obviously  share,  as  I  do,  with  the  question  of 
summary  exclusion. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you. 

The  gentleman's  time  has  expired,  and  we  thank  our  friend  from 
the  District  of  Columbia  for  his  testimony. 

We  now  invite  to  come  forward  Ambassador  Diego  Asencio  from 
the  Department  of  State  who  has  worked  long  and  hard  on  our  bill. 
We  welcome  you,  Diego. 

Mr.  Ambassador,  your  statement  has  been  filed  and  we  thank 
you  for  it,  and  it  is  a  part  of  the  record.  You  are  welcome  to  speak 
from  it,  to  it,  however  you  wish,  with  perhaps  a  discussion  of  some 
of  the  major  points. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HON.  DIEGO  C.  ASENCIO,  ASSISTANT  SECRETARY 
FOR  CONSULAR  AFFAIRS,  DEPARTMENT  OF  STATE 

Secretary  Asencio.  I  will  be  happy  to  do  that,  Mr.  Chairman.  It 
is  a  short  statement,  so  I  will  be  a  little  more  loquacious  than  I 
ordinarily  am  in  this  regard. 

I  am  pleased  to  be  here  today  to  testify  regarding  this  bill,  and  I 
congratulate  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  introducing  it  so  early  in  this 
session. 

I  might  add  one  of  the  things  I  particularly  think  should  be  ap- 
plauded is  the  fact  that,  I  think,  in  reacting  to  what  is  essentially  a 
negative  public  reaction  with  regard  to  this  problem,  you  and  your 
colleagues  have  turned  it  into  a  reform  movement.  That  is  highly 
laudable. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  We  thank  you  for  that. 

Secretary  Asencio.  My  testimony,  of  course,  parallels  very  close- 
ly what  I  said  last  year. 

We  continue  to  believe,  for  example,  in  the  need  for  measures  to 
regularize  the  status  of  some  of  those  in  the  United  States  illegally, 
to  reduce  the  pull  factors  that  induce  such  illegality,  and  to  expe- 
dite administrative  procedures  relating  to  admission,  exclusion, 
and  deportation.  Moreover,  we  continue  to  support  strongly  the 
concept  of  addressing  the  problems  resulting  from  illegal  migration 
in  an  overall  package  approach. 

In  connection  with  the  regularization  of  status  proposal,  I  would 
also  note  that  it  would  serve  not  only  our  own  interests  but  would 


231 

diminish  the  concerns  expressed  by  Mexico  and  other  countries  re- 
specting the  circumstances  of  their  nationals  in  the  United  States. 

I  shall  defer  to  the  views  of  other  agencies  on  issues  that  do  not 
directly  involve  concerns  of  the  Department  of  State,  and  will  ad- 
dress the  latter. 

We  appreciate  the  general  validity  of  the  user-fee  concept.  How- 
ever, the  Department  has  grave  foreign  relations  and  other  reser- 
vations about  the  imposition  of  such  fees  at  U.S.  land  border  ports 
of  entry.  We  believe  that  the  mere  imposition  of  such  fees  would 
itself  almost  certainly  appear  to  Mexico  and  Canada  as  inconsist- 
ent with  the  spirit  of  cross-border  cooperation  which  the  President 
has  emphasized.  This  reaction,  based  on  a  matter  of  principle, 
would  at  a  minimum  be  another  irritant  in  bilateral  relations  and 
could  lead  to  reciprocal  action. 

In  addition  to  these  foreign  relations  concerns,  we  are  disturbed 
by  the  essential  impracticality  of  this  proposal.  We  are  all  very 
aware  of  the  traffic  tie-ups  that  already  exist  at  such  ports.  There 
would  be  a  quantum  jump  in  those  delays  if  fees  had  to  be  assessed 
on  a  per  capita  basis.  It  is  obvious  that  a  simple  unmanned  toll 
booth  operation  would  not  suffice,  not  only  because  of  fluctuating 
exchange  rates  in  both  neighboring  countries  but  more  particularly 
because  such  a  system  could  account  only  for  the  vehicle  and  not 
for  the  number  of  passengers,  let  alone  their  nationality.  I  would 
note,  however,  that  we  prefer  this  bill's  provision,  which  is  not 
mandatory  and  seems  more  fair,  to  that  in  the  Senate  immigration 
bill. 

We  welcome  the  consensus  on  the  need  for  special  asylum  offi- 
cers but  are  seriously  concerned  that  this  bill  does  not  incorporate 
a  consultative  role  for  the  Department  of  State.  We  believe  that 
State's  expertise  on  foreign  aspects  bearing  on  asylum  questions  is 
essential  to  their  proper  adjudication.  It  is  because  the  current 
statute  does  not  make  this  clear  that  we  prefer  a  legislative  man- 
date for  consultation  to  the  current  reliance  on  the  Service's  regu- 
lations which  lack  such  a  specific  base. 

We  would  prefer  that  the  legislation  provide  that  the  Secretary 
of  State  make  available  to  the  Attorney  General  reports  on  the 
condition  of  human  rights  in  all  countries,  and  that  the  asylum  ad- 
judication officer  should  use  such  reports  as  general  guidelines  in 
making  the  asylum  determination.  We  would  also  prefer  that  the 
legislation  provide  that  the  Secretary  of  State  may  submit  com- 
ments on  individual  applications  to  the  asylum  adjudicator. 

We  regret  also  that  portion  of  the  asylum  provisions  which  calls 
for  open  hearings  but  permits  closed  hearings  upon  the  request  of 
the  applicant.  At  best  we  find  it  inconsistent  with  the  recognition 
in  section  124(c)  of  the  need  to  protect  documents  associated  with 
asylum  hearings,  and  have  some  difficulty  understanding  how  doc- 
uments used  at  an  open  hearing  can  be  kept  confidential. 

More  important,  we  believe  it  is  essential  in  the  interest  of  the 
claimant,  as  well  as  of  any  family  members  or  members  of  the 
same  group  still  in  the  country  from  which  the  applicant  has  fled, 
that  all  materials  bearing  on  the  matter — especially  those  that  the 
claimant  presents — be  confidential.  We  are  concerned  that  many 
unsophisticated  asylum  claimants  will  not  realize  in  advance  that 
they  have  the  right  to  a  closed  hearing  nor  an  awareness  of  the 


232 

importance  to  others  that  the  matter  be  treated  on  a  confidential 
basis.  By  contrast,  however,  it  seems  certain  that  those  who  believe 
that  publicity  is  a  prerequisite  to  just  treatment  will  instinctively 
seek  an  open  hearing.  We  would  urge,  therefore,  that  this  provision 
be  amended  to  establish  a  closed  hearing  except  at  the  expressed 
desire  of  the  applicant. 

With  regard  to  the  students  provision,  we  find  little  merit  in 
dropping  the  distinction  between  private  students  and  sponsored 
exchange  visitors  and  have  to  wonder  whether  foreign  governments 
will  not  also  be  confused  by  this  blurring  of  purpose.  We  would  also 
note  a  probably  unintentional  inequity — certainly  in  contrast  to 
our  usual  emphasis  on  family  unification — in  the  waiver  provision, 
which  would  make  it  possible  for  spouses  of  citizens  and  certain 
persons  needed  by  industry  to  acquire  resident  status  without  first 
residing  abroad  for  2  years  but  would  withhold  that  opportunity 
from  the  spouses  of  resident  aliens. 

We  have  no  objection  to  the  proposal  to  benefit  certain  children 
and  surviving  spouses  of  international  civil  servants  who  have  long 
resided  in  the  United  States. 

Finally,  and  of  particular  importance  to  State,  is  the  nonimmi- 
grant visa  waiver  provision.  We  believe  that  a  waiver  under  the 
broader  terms  we  originally  proposed  would  prove  to  be  effectively 
manageable.  However,  believing  also  that,  if  the  program  were  ini- 
tially limited  as  proposed  in  this  bill,  the  Congress  would  in  fact 
extend  and  expand  it,  we  are  prepared  to  accept  the  concept  of  a 
pilot  program,  limited  in  both  duration  and  the  number  of  coun- 
tries. Not  surprisingly,  we  would  prefer  the  larger  number,  eight, 
that  is  in  S.  529  to  the  five  provided  in  this  legislative  proposal. 

The  modified  criteria  proposed  for  inclusion  of  a  country  in  the 
program  are,  however,  deeply  troubling.  They  enlarge  substantially 
the  bases  for  exclusion  from  the  list  and,  at  the  same  time,  they 
cut  the  percentage  of  incidence  of  those  factors  that  would  be  per- 
missible. This  would  preclude  meeting  the  objectives  of  the  provi- 
sion— that  is,  to  extend  reciprocity  to  our  closest  allies  who  have 
waived  visas  for  U.S.  visitors  for  many  years  and  to  eliminate  un- 
necessary processing  of  visas  at  our  major  posts.  Some  major  coun- 
tries would  not  qualify  under  this  revision  of  standards. 

We  are  particularly  disturbed  by  the  failure  to  use  a  2-year  aver- 
age as  the  indicator.  There  are  economic  and  political  events  that 
skew  data  from  one  year  to  the  next  for  reasons  not  bearing  on 
whether  a  country's  nationals  are  good  nonimmigrant  risks.  Use  of 
only  the  prior  year's  data  quite  probably  would  result  in  such  aber- 
rations as  a  country  not  being  found  eligible  for  the  program  which 
should  be  or,  worse,  being  found  eligible  when  it  should  not  be. 

We  recognize  that  some  of  the  proposals  about  which  we  have  ex- 
pressed reservations  are  predicated  on  philosophic  issues  on  which 
honorable  men  can  honestly  differ.  We  believe,  however,  that  some 
may  be  essentially  technical  or  drafting  matters  and  would  be 
pleased  to  work  with  the  committee  members  and  staff  to  develop 
modifications  that  would  be  mutually  satisfactory. 

[The  complete  statement  follows:] 


233 

Statement  of  Hon.  Diego  C.  Asencio,  Assistant  Secretary  for  Consular  Affairs 

Mr.  Chairman,  members  of  the  committee,  I  am  pleased  to  be  here  today  to  testify 
regarding  H.R.  1510,  and  I  congratulate  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  introducing  it  so 
early  in  this  session.  Although  it  differs  in  some  respects  from  H.R.  5872  on  which  I 
testified  last  year,  it  closely  parallels  that  bill  in  many  particulars  and  my  testimo- 
ny, therefore,  will  bear  a  similar  resemblance  to  my  earlier  remarks  on  it. 

We  continue  to  believe,  for  example,  in  the  need  for  measures  to  regularize  the 
status  of  some  of  those  in  the  United  States  illegally,  to  reduce  the  "pull  factors" 
that  induce  such  illegality,  and  to  expedite  administrative  procedures  relating  to  ad- 
mission, exclusion  and  deportation.  Moreover,  we  continue  to  support  strongly  the 
concept  of  addressing  the  problems  resulting  from  illegal  migration  in  an  overall 
"package"  approach.  In  connection  with  the  regularization  of  status  proposal,  I 
would  also  note  that  it  would  serve  not  only  our  own  interests  but  would  diminish 
the  concerns  expressed  by  Mexico  and  other  countries  respecting  the  circumstances 
of  their  nationals  in  the  United  States. 

I  shall  defer  to  the  views  of  the  agencies  more  directly  affected  by  many  of  the 
issued  covered  in  this  proposed  legislation,  and  address  primarily  those  items  of  spe- 
cial interest  to  the  Department  of  State  in  the  substantive  sense. 

We  appreciate  the  General  Validity  of  the  "user  fee"  concept.  However,  the  De- 
partment has  grave  foreign  relations  and  other  reservations  about  the  imposition  of 
such  fees  at  U.S.  land  border  ports  of  entry.  The  mere  imposition  of  such  fees  would 
itself  almost  certainly  appear  to  Mexico  and  Canada  as  inconsistent  with  the  spirit 
of  cross-border  cooperation  which  the  President  has  emphasized.  This  reaction, 
based  on  a  matter  of  principle,  would  at  a  minimum  be  another  irritant  in  bilateral 
relations  and  could  lead  to  reciprocal  action. 

In  addition  to  these  foreign  relations  concerns,  we  are  disturbed  by  the  essential 
impracticality  of  this  proposal.  We  are  all  very  aware  of  the  traffic  tie-ups  that  al- 
ready exist  at  such  ports.  There  would  be  a  quantum  jump  in  those  delays  if  fees 
had  to  be  assessed  on  a  per  capita  basis.  It  is  obvious  that  a  simple  unmanned  toll- 
booth  operation  would  not  suffice,  not  only  because  of  fluctuating  exchange  rates  in 
both  neighboring  countries  but  more  particularly  because  such  a  system  could  ac- 
count only  for  the  vehicle  and  not  for  the  number  of  passengers,  let  alone  their  na- 
tionality. I  would  note,  however,  that  we  prefer  this  bill's  provision,  which  is  not 
mandatory  and  seems  more  fair,  to  that  in  the  Senate  immigration  bill. 

We  welcome  the  consensus  on  the  need  for  special  asylum  officers  but  are  serious- 
ly concerned  that  this  bill  does  not  incorporate  a  consultative  role  for  the  Depart- 
ment of  State.  We  believe  that  State's  expertise  on  foreign  aspects  bearing  on 
asylum  questions  is  essential  to  their  proper  adjudication.  It  is  because  the  current 
statute  does  not  make  this  clear  that  we  prefer  a  legislative  mandate  for  consulta- 
tion to  the  current  reliance  on  the  Service's  regulations  which  lack  such  a  specific 
basis.  We  would  prefer  that  the  legislation  provide  that  the  Secretary  of  State  make 
available  to  the  Attorney  General  reports  on  the  condition  of  human  rights  in  all 
countries,  and  that  the  asylum  adjudication  officer  should  use  such  reports  as  gener- 
al guidelines  in  making  the  asylum  determination.  We  would  also  prefer  that  the 
legislation  provide  that  the  Secretary  of  State  may  submit  comments  on  individual 
applications  to  the  asylum  adjudicator. 

We  regret  also  that  portion  of  the  asylum  provisions  which  calls  for  open  hearings 
but  permits  closed  hearings  upon  the  request  of  the  applicant.  At  best,  we  find  it 
inconsistent  with  the  recognition  in  section  124(c)  of  the  need  to  protect  documents 
associated  with  asylum  hearings,  and  have  some  difficulty  understanding  how  docu- 
ments used  at  an  open  hearing  can  be  kept  "confidential". 

More  important,  we  believe  it  is  essential  in  the  interest  of  the  claimant,  as  well 
as  of  any  family  members  or  members  of  the  same  group  still  in  the  country  from 
which  the  applicant  has  fled,  that  all  materials  bearing  on  the  matter— especially 
those  that  the  claimant  presents— be  confidential.  Many  unsophisticated  asylum 
claimants  will  not  realize  in  advance  that  they  have  the  right  to  a  closed  hearing 
nor  an  awareness  of  the  importance  to  others  that  the  matter  be  treated  on  a  confi- 
dential basis.  By  contrast,  however,  it  seems  certain  that  those  who  believe  that 
publicity  is  a  prerequisite  to  just  treatment  will  instinctively  seek  an  open  hearing. 
We  would  urge,  therefore,  that  this  provision  be  amended  to  establish  a  closed  hear- 
ing except  at  the  expressed  desire  of  the  applicant. 

With  regard  to  the  students  provision,  we  find  little  merit  in  dropping  the  distinc- 
tion between  private  students  and  sponsored  exchange  visitors  and  have  to  wonder 
whether  foreign  governments  will  not  also  be  confused  by  this  blurring  of  purpose. 
We  would  also  note  a  probably  unintentional  inequity— certainly  in  contrast  to  our 
usual  emphasis  on  family  unification — in  the  waiver  provision,  which  would  make  it 


1  o     err/? 


234 

possible  for  spouses  of  citizens  and  certain  persons  needed  by  industry  to  acquire 
resident  status  without  first  residing  abroad  for  2  years  but  would  withhold  that  op- 
portunity from  the  spouses  of  resident  aliens. 

We  have  no  objection  to  the  proposal  to  benefit  certain  children  and  surviving 
spouses  of  international  civil  servants  who  have  long  resided  in  the  United  States. 

Finally,  and  of  particular  importance  to  State,  is  the  nonimmigrant  visa  waiver 
provision.  We  believe  that  a  waiver  under  the  broader  terms  we  originally  proposed 
would  prove  to  be  effectively  manageable.  However,  believing  also  that,  if  the  pro- 
grams were  initially  limited  as  proposed  in  this  bill,  the  Congress  would,  in  fact, 
extend  and  expand  it,  we  are  prepared  to  accept  the  concept  of  a  pilot  program,  lim- 
ited in  both  duration  and  the  number  of  countries.  Not  surprisingly,  we  would 
prefer  the  larger  number  (eight)  that  is  in  S.  529  to  the  five  provided  in  this  legisla- 
tive proposal. 

The  modified  criteria  proposed  for  inclusion  of  a  country  in  the  program  are,  how- 
ever, deeply  troubling.  They  enlarge  substantially  the  bases  for  exclusion  from  the 
list  and,  at  the  same  time,  they  cut  the  percentage  of  incidence  of  those  factors  that 
would  be  permissible.  This  would  preclude  meeting  the  objectives  of  the  provision- 
that  is,  to  extend  reciprocity  to  our  closest  allies  who  have  waived  visas  for  U.S. 
visitors  for  many  years  and  to  eliminate  unnecessary  processing  of  visas  at  our 
major  posts.  Some  major  countries  would  not  qualify  under  this  revision  of  stand- 
ards. 

We  are  particularly  disturbed  by  the  failure  to  use  a  2-year  average  as  the  mdica- 
tor.  There  are  economic  and  political  events  that  skew  data  from  1  year  to  the  next 
for  reasons  not  bearing  on  whether  a  country's  nationals  are  good  nonimmigrant 
risks.  Use  of  only  the  prior  year's  data  quite  probably  would  result  in  such  aberra- 
tions as  a  country  not  being  found  eligible  for  the  program  which  should  be  or, 
worse,  being  found  eligible  when  it  should  not  be. 

We  recognize  that  some  of  the  proposals  about  which  we  have  expressed  reserva- 
tions are  predicated  on  philosophic  issues  on  which  honorable  men  can  honestly 
differ.  We  believe,  however,  that  some  may  be  essentially  technical  or  drafting  mat- 
ters and  would  be  pleased  to  work  with  the  committee  members  and  staff  to  develop 
modifications  that  would  be  mutually  satisfactory. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Mr.  Ambassador,  many  thanks  for  your  statement, 
and  I  do  appreciate  all  the  work  that  you  have  done  personally  and 
that  your  Department  has  done  over  the  last  2  years  that  I  have 
had  contact  with  the  subject  area.  You  have  been  indefatigable  in 
promoting  appropriate  and  proper  changes  in  the  Nation's  immi- 
gration laws  in  order  to  do  justice. 

And  I  understand  that  you  might  be  a  little  bit  reticent  to  talk 
about  visa  waivers — but  let  me  forge  ahead  anyway. 

If  you  had  a  2-year  average  refusal  rate  rather  than  1-year  rate, 
would  that  help  a  little  bit? 

Secretary  Asencio.  Yes,  very  definitely. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Even  if  you  kept  the  same  criteria. 

Secretary  Asencio.  If  you  kept  the  same  criteria,  I  would  still  be 
in  trouble. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  There  are  two  of  them.  If  I  understand,  one  is  the 
denial  at  the  visa  office  and  one  is  denial  at  the  entry. 

Secretary  Asencio.  Yes,  exclusions. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  And  of  the  two  of  them,  I  guess  the  exclusion  is 
more  of  a  trouble? 

Secretary  Asencio.  Exclusions  and  withdrawals,  actually,  both 
complicate  our  existence.  What  I'm  afraid  of  is  I'm  not  sure  many 
nations  in  the  world  on  the  basis  of  that  criteria  would  be  eligible 
for  this  provision. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Can  you  give  us  any  data  on  that?  Because  if  we 
have  a  visa  waiver,  then  we  want  it  to  work.  We  did  have  discus- 
sions with  your  consular  officers  in  Rome  on  the  whole  question  of 
the  workability  of  this  thing.  So  we  do  not  want  this  to  be  an  al- 
leged system  which  is  a  nonsystem.  Any  data  you  could  provide 


235 

which  would  detail  that  many  nations  of  the  world  who  now  afford 
our  citizens  a  right  to  travel  without  visas  which  would  maybe  fail 
to  qualify  under  this  bill,  that  would  be  helpful. 

Secretary  Asencio.  I'll  be  happy  to  do  that,  Mr.  Chairman,  but 
ultimately  it  will  really  be  a  subjective  judgment  in  the  sense  that 
a  2-percent  refusal  rate  strikes  us  as  a  minimal  requirement. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Is  that  what  was  in  the  original  bill? 

Secretary  Asencio.  That's  correct. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  And  that's  the  percentage  that's  here  now? 

Secretary  Asencio.  Well,  it's  2  percent,  but  with  these  additional 
criteria. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Let  me  switch  quickly  with  the  little  time  I  have 
remaining  and  ask  you  about  one  of  the  consistent  refrains,  the 
GAO  study  that  suggested,  according  to  our  critics,  that  employer 
sanctions  could  not  work. 

Now,  I  have  looked  at  the  study  and  read  it  pretty  carefully,  and 
I  think  it  says  it  does  not  work  if  you  do  not  want  it  to  work. 

I  wonder  if  you  have  some  ideas,  having  traveled  and  worked  in 
some  of  the  nations  where  they  have  this  system  of  employer  sanc- 
tions. 

Secretary  Asencio.  I  read  the  study,  of  course,  when  it  first  came 
out,  I  read  it  a  couple  of  weeks  ago,  and  I  read  it  again  last  night. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Just  thinking  that  I  might  ask  about  it. 

Secretary  Asencio.  Exactly.  Well,  actually  I  consider  it  key  to 
the  proposals  because,  obviously,  if  one  could  make  the  judgment 
that  employer  sanctions  are  not  going  to  work,  so  therefore  why 
try,  all  the  work  we  have  done  in  this  regard  goes  for  naught;  what 
we  have  done  is  meaningless. 

I'm  not  sure  that  one  can  arrive  at  that  conclusion  from  the 
report.  For  instance,  I  think  if  one  goes  beyond  the  overview,  the 
impression  that  in  all  nations  where  this  was  examined  sanctions 
are  not  working  is  not  correct.  There  are  a  number  of  nations 
where  the  employer  sanctions  are  working  very  well.  And  there 
are  other  nations  detailed  where  sanctions  programs  are  not  essen- 
tial because  the  enforcement  capability  is  working  so  well.  So  you 
have  that  kind  of  mix. 

So  I  think  you  are  perfectly  right,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  the  sense 
that  if  you  don't  want  it  to  work,  obviously  it  is  not  going  to  work. 
If  you  are  intent  on  making  it  work,  it  will  work,  and  there  is  evi- 
dence in  the  report  to  that. 

And,  of  course,  there  are  some  other,  I  think,  items  in  the  report 
that  would  require  further  analysis  also. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Well,  if  you  have  a  chance,  Mr.  Ambassador,  any 
fairly  brief  observations  on  what  you  have  found,  will  help  us  very 
much. 

Secretary  Asencio.  Well,  just  very,  very  briefly,  one  of  the  things 
that  struck  me  is  that  in  absolute  terms,  certainly,  and  probably 
also  in  relative  terms,  the  number  of  illegal  aliens  in  the  societies 
where  sanctions  programs  presumably  are  not  working  is  rather 
small,  certainly  not  something  to  the  extent  of  the  problem  we  be- 
lieve we  are  facing.  And  one  could  then  make  the  argument  that 
therefore  if  we  could  get  our  problem  down  to  manageable  propor- 
tions we  wouldn't  have  to  be  as  fierce  in  the  application  of  this  law 
as  one  would  desire. 


236 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Very  good.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Ambassador. 
The  gentleman  from  Texas. 

Mr.  Hall.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Ambassador.  I  want  to  ask  you  a  ques- 
tion on  the  bottom  of  page  2  and  the  top  of  page  3.  It  says: 

We  welcome  the  consensus  on  the  need  for  special  asylum  officers  but  are  serious- 
ly concerned  that  this  bill  does  not  incorporate  a  consultative  role  for  the  Depart- 
ment of  State. 

Would  you  explain  what  you  mean  by  that,  please,  sir? 

Secretary  Asencio.  I  think  that  because  of  our  foreign  relations 
expertise,  because  we  are  in  the  business  of  participating  in  over- 
seeing relations  with  other  countries,  we  have  a  knowledge  about 
conditions  in  those  countries  which  I  think  is  pertinent  to  the  adju- 
dicative process  in  these  cases.  And  I  think  that  this  is  not  a  deter- 
mination where  the  Department  of  State  should  be  excluded  but 
one  where  this  particular  knowledge  is  recognized  and  made  part 
of  the  data  that  are  available  to  the  Attorney  General. 

Mr.  Hall.  Well,  are  you  speaking  of  people  who  may  be  on  the 
beaches,  when  a  person  comes  in  a  boat  and  lands,  that  initial  con- 
versation? 

Secretary  Asencio.  Asylum  cases  by  definition  are  people  who 
are  actually  here  in  the  country.  What  I  am  talking  about  is  where 
those  people  make  a  claim  to  political  persecution  or  make  a  re- 
quest for  asylum,  there  is  a  process  by  which  one  determines 
whether  in  fact  the  conditions  in  the  country  they  are  coming  from 
are  such  that  would  make  that  a  valid  request. 

Mr.  Hall.  Well,  do  you  think  that  an  agent  of  the  INS  should 
have  the  exclusive  authority  to  make  that  determination  on  the 
beach  in  a  first  conversation  with  that  person  who  may  be  coming 
into  this  country? 

Secretary  Asencio.  Well,  I  think  he  has  an  absolute  duty  to  ask, 
certainly,  why  that  person  was  coming.  And  if  there  is  no  indica- 
tion that  the  person  is  fleeing  from  persecution  or  the  other  recog- 
nized conditions  in  these  cases,  then  he  can  make  a  preliminary  de- 
termination. 

Mr.  Hall.  You  say  "preliminary."  Do  you  think  that  after  he 
makes  that  determination  the  Department  of  State  should  be 
called  in  to  make  another  determination  as  to  whether  or  not  that 
agent  was  right  or  wrong  in  making  that  determination  initially? 

Secretary  Asencio.  No;  what  I'm  saying,  Mr.  Hall,  is  that  if  the 
alien  says  that  he  in  fact  is  a  political  refugee,  that  he  in  fact  is 
fleeing  from  persecution  in  his  home  country,  when  the  INS  officer 
passes  that  piece  of  information  on  to  his  superiors,  "We  have  here 
an  alien  who  says  that  he  indeed  is  fleeing  from  political  persecu- 
tion," the  Attorney  General  should  have  a  opinion  from  the  De- 
partment of  State  as  to  whether  the  conditions  in  that  country,  the 
country  the  alien  is  fleeing  from,  would  lead  one  to  reasonably  con- 
clude that  that  persecution  was  possible. 

Mr.  Hall.  Well,  suppose  a  person  comes  in  and  says  they  are  not 
fleeing  because  of  persecution,  they  are  not  seeking  political 
asylum. 

Secretary  Asencio.  Then  the  Department  of  State  is  not  in- 
volved. 


237 

Mr.  Hall.  All  right.  I  thought  you  indicated  that  they  should  be 
involved  regardless  of  what  the  person  initially  made  as  a  determi- 
nation. 

Secretary  Asencio.  No;  what  I'm  saying  is  this  bill  doesn't  recog- 
nize any  role  at  all  for  the  State  Department.  I  think  it  should. 

Mr.  Hall.  All  right.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Mazzoll  Let  me  use  a  few  seconds  of  my  friend's  time  from 
Texas. 

Actually  it  doesn't  specifically  exclude  State. 

Secretary  Asencio.  That's  right. 

Mr.  Mazzoll  The  bill  is  silent.  And  if  the  INS  feels  it  needs  guid- 
ance, it  may  consult. 

Secretary  Asencio.  Well,  I  trust  the  INS  implicitly. 

Mr.  Mazzoll  Sure.  But  at  least  we  have  not  gone  so  far  as  to 
carve  you  fellows  out  of  the  action. 

My  time  has  expired. 

The  gentleman  from  California.  I  apologize  to  the  gentleman. 
Somehow,  my  sense  of  direction  of  left  and  right,  but  not  philo- 
sophically, just  in  a  directional  sense,  was  askew.  And  the  gentle- 
man is  really  entitled  to  be  called  on  first  for  questions. 

Mr.  Lungren.  I  appreciate  that. 

Secretary  Asencio.  May  I  say  before  he  begins,  Mr.  Lungren,  I 
was  just  in  your  district  talking  to  some  of  your  staffers  selling  im- 
migration policy  and  had  a  very  good  time  with  them. 

Mr.  Mazzoll  It  speaks  very  well  of  the  gentleman,  I  am  sure. 

Mr.  Lungren.  I  think  you  are  the  first  person  who  has  said  you 
have  implicitly  full  confidence  in  the  INS.  We  don't.  But  we  have 
had  a  tremendous  variety  of  testimony  here. 

The  first  thing  I  would  like  to  do  is  to  clear  up  the  rumor  I  have 
heard.  Having  seen  you  here  now  for  several  years  in  this  process, 
I  understand  that  you  have  vowed  not  to  trim  your  beard  until  we 
get  this  bill  through;  is  that  correct? 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary  Asencio.  You  think  I'm  in  trouble,  do  you? 

Mr.  Lungren.  I  don't  know. 

Secretary  Asencio.  I  would  say  I  think  we  came  very  close  in  the 
last  session.  I  am  convinced  that  we  had  the  votes,  and  that  we  just 
ran  out  of  time.  I'm  hoping  that  is  still  the  case. 

Mr.  Lungren.  We  are  doing  our  best  to  help  you. 

There  are  two  things  I'd  like  to  talk  about.  One  is  to  follow  up  on 
some  of  the  questions  that  just  took  place  with  respect  to  the  State 
Department  giving  general  guidelines  in  terms  of  what  the  circum- 
stances are  in  the  country  from  which  a  prospective  asylee  has 
fied. 

As  I  understand  one  of  your  concerns  it  is  this,  that  if  we  don't 
explicitly  state  it  in  the  law,  the  asylum  adjudication  officer  would 
have  no  obligation  to  consider  the  position  of  the  State  Depart- 
ment, and  in  that  fashion  you  might  have  a  circumstance  where  an 
asylum  adjudication  officer  in  Los  Angeles  would  rely  on  some  vol- 
untary organization  for  their  general  guidelines.  The  one  in  Chica- 
go might  take  the  State  Department,  the  one  in  San  Francisco 
might  take  somebody  else's.  And  not  with  respect  to  the  individuals 
fitting  into  that  context  but  in  terms  of  the  general  context  itself. 
Is  that  correct? 


238 

Secretary  Asencio.  That  is  perhaps  slightly  beyond  what  I  am 
saying.  What  I'm  saying  is  that  it  would  be  better  if  that  particular 
role  is  recognized  in  the  law  rather  than  not.  In  other  words,  the 
people  who  deal  with  these  things  would  be  happier  if  their  specific 
participation  in  this  process  is  recognized.  And  they  are  not  saying 
that  without  it,  it's  not  going  to  happen.  They  just  would  be  more 
comfortable.  And  I  think  this  is  a  reasonable  position  to  take. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  It  seems  to  me  the  State  Department  is  given  re- 
sponsibility in  this  country  for  foreign  policy  and  hopefully  has  the 
ability  to  make  some  judgments. 
Secretary  Asencio.  Exactly. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  We  ought  to  have  a  generalized  policy  that  affects 
the  adjudicatory  process. 

Secretary  Asencio.  Without  recognizing  it  in  the  law? 
Mr.  LuNGREN.  No,  no.  I  think  you  ought  to  recognize  it  in  the 
law.  I'm  taking  your  point.  It's  a  point  well  made,  one  that  I  had 
not  considered  before.  ^ 

The  second  thing  I'd  like  to  talk  about  is  something  you  didn  t 
touch  on  in  your  testimony,  which  is  the  idea  of  consultation  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  Mexico  with  respect  to  immigration 
policy.  I  have  a  shortened  version  of  what  I  really  want  to  get 
when  we  get  on  the  floor.  I'm  trying  to  maneuver  in  that  position. 
But  does  the  United  States  have  any  feelings  on  that  with  respect 
to  a  formalized  process  of  consultation  between  the  United  States 
and  Mexico  on  immigration  policy? 

Secretary  Asencio.  Are  we  referring  now  to  your  proposal  on 
temporary  workers,  or  are  you  expanding  this  beyond? 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  I  do  not  believe  it  is  limited  in  the  bill  just  to  tem- 
porary workers. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  That  was  because  of  germaneness,  but  the  gentle- 
man's point  from  the  start  has  been  to  try  to  make  consultations  a 
kind  of  generic  activity  throughout  the  whole  questioning. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  With  respect  to  immigration  generally,  but  the 
only  way  I  can  get  it  in  this  bill  without  having  this  bill  go  to  a 
number  of  different  committees  is  to  limit  it  to  the  H-2  program. 
Secretary  Asencio.  The  aspect  of  consultation  gives  me  pause  in 
the  sense  that  I  don't  think  that  we  can  be  put  into  the  position  of 
perhaps  opening  ourselves  to  accusations  that  we  are  writing  immi- 
gration laws  for  the  benefit  of  foreign  countries.  That  is  from  our 
point  of  view. 

From,  for  instance,  the  Mexican  Government's  point  of  view, 
they  have  been  very  scrupulous  in  not  telling  us  specifically  what 
they  consider  about  various  parts  of  our  legislation.  We  have  dis- 
cussed aspects  of  our  legislation  with  them.  For  instance,  with  the 
preceding  Mexican  Government,  we  went  down  and  laid  out  very 
clearly  before  making  our  policy  publicly  known— we  actually  laid 
out  the  provisions  of  what  we  had  in  mind,  and  they  were  very 
careful  not  to  express  any  value  judgnients.  And  I  would  consider 
that  probably  something  we  could  anticipate  in  the  future  also. 

I  think  obviously  the  idea  of  talking  is  always  an  important  one, 
and  I'm  sure  we  will.  But  "consultations"  has  a  more  precise  mean- 
ing in  foreign  affairs  and  diplomacy  that  involves  more  than  just, 
"This  is  what  we  are  going  to  do,  Charlie,  and  what  do  you  think?" 
It's  a  little  bit  more  than  that. 


239 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  My  concern  is  that  we,  based  on  past  experience, 
can't  be  guaranteed  that  in  fact  we  will  talk. 

Secretary  Asencio.  You're  thinking  of  the  bracero  program,  of 
course. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  The  bracero  program  and  any  number  of  things — 
when  we  have  operations  on  the  Mexican  border.  About  6  or  7 
years  ago  we  really  beefed  it  up  around  Chula  Vista,  and  for  a  sev- 
eral-month period  we  really  caught  a  lot  more  people  than  we  had 
before,  and  we've  cut  it  down  a  little  bit.  No  prior  consultation 
with  Mexico.  Maybe  some  people  feared  a  consultation  at  that  time 
or  something. 

But  it  just  seems  to  me  if  we  are  truly  going  to  recognize  this 
country  as  part  of  the  solution  to  a  problem  that  we  have  to  recog- 
nize now  exists,  maybe  a  formalized  requirement  of  whatever  ad- 
ministration is  in  office  is  what  is  necessary.  That's  my  concern. 

Secretary  Asencio.  Let  me  put  it  this  way.  I  cannot  conceive  of 
this  administration  doing  something  unilaterally  that  would  affect 
Mexico  in  this  area  without  talking  to  them  about  it. 

I  think  the  problem  now  is  of  such  great  importance  to  both  na- 
tions that  obviously  it's  something  that  has  to  be  discussed. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  I  recall  having  some  discussion  with  Leonel  Cas- 
tillo when  he  was  head  of  the  INS  in  which  he  indicated  his  feeling 
that  it  was  kind  of  difficult  for  us  to  go  to  Mexico  and  ask  for  their 
cooperation  on  the  immigration  program  when  all  they  had  to  do 
was  look  across  the  border  and  see  we  weren't  taking  it  seriously. 
In  other  words,  "You  do  our  job  while  we're  not  doing  it."  And  I 
think  that's  part  of  it.  Now,  when  we  are  on  the  threshold  of  actu- 
ally doing  something,  it  seems  to  me,  is  the  time  when  we  can  in 
good  faith  enter  into  discussions  with  our  counterparts  in  Mexico 
and  say  that  we  are  serious  about  it,  "Can  you  get  serious  about  it 
and  can  we  work  something  out?" 

Secretary  Asencio.  Can  I  convince  you  of  discussions  versus  con- 
sultations? 

Mr.  Lungren.  I'm  not  a  diplomat;  I'm  a  politician.  But  I  do  un- 
derstand the  difference  in  nuances  and  I'd  be  happy  to  change  the 
language  as  long  as  we  get  done  what  has  to  be  done. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  gentleman's  time  has  expired. 

The  gentleman  from  Florida. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

I  am  very  interested,  Mr.  Ambassador,  in  seeing  to  it  that  we  get 
along  with  the  process  of  asylum  with  due  process  and  with  a  clear 
understanding  of  what  the  conditions  are  in  the  countries  from 
which  these  people  come  and  where  they  are  likely  to  return.  And 
I  certainly  agree  with  your  assertion  that  we  need  to  have  State 
Department  consultation  at  the  very  least  on  the  issue  of  political 
persecution  or  the  prospects  of  it.  There  are  those  who  have  sug- 
gested that  the  judges,  under  the  bill  that  we  are  crafting  now,  or 
have  crafted,  be  bound  by  State  Department  opinion  with  regard  to 
the  conditions  in  the  country  as  to  whether  the  person  has  a  rea- 
sonable fear  of  political  persecution. 

Do  you  believe  that  that  should  be  the  case,  that  the  judge  doing 
the  determining  should  be  bound  in  some  way — not  just  simply 
consult  but  be  bound  by  the  State  Department's  opinion? 


240 

Secretary  Asencio.  I'm  not  an  attorney,  Mr.  McCollum,  but  it 
would  strike  me  as  being  rather  unusual  for  a  judge  to  have  to  be 
bound  by  something  emanating  from  the  executive  branch.  It 
would  seem  to  me  to  go  to  the  heart  of  an  independent  judiciary. 

It  would  seem  to  me,  on  the  other  hand,  that  obviously  whatever 
evidence  the  Department  of  State  provided  would  be  an  important 
element  in  whatever  judgment  a  judge  arrived  at. 

Mr.  McCollum.  You  believe  what  really  needs  to  be  done,  then, 
is  that  there  be  some  clear-cut  indication  in  our  legislation  that  at 
that  stage  when  political  persecution  or  the  threat  of  it  is  raised 
and  the  person  seeks  asylum,  the  State  Department's  input  is 
always  obtained. 

Secretary  Asencio.  Yes,  absolutely.  For  instance,  I  was  listening 
very  intently  to  Mr.  Fauntroy's  testimony,  and  he  made  some  re- 
marks on  the  investigations  of  the  Department  of  State  in  Haiti. 
And  I  was  rather  struck  by  the  statement  he  made,  and  that  is 
that  we  haven't  found  them  all.  But  we  found  a  goodly  number.  I 
think  our  record  in  that  regard  is  rather  well  drawn.  And  we  have 
not  found  any  evidence  of  persecution  of  those  who  have  returned. 

I  would  think  that  that  is  an  indication  of  the  type  of  activity  we 
could  engage  in,  where  obviously  again  it  comes  down  to  a  more  or 
less  subjective  judgment  in  the  sense  that  if  you  haven't  found 
them  all  you  can't  be  absolutely  certain  that  they  have  all  been 
well  treated.  But  you  could  at  least  get  an  indication.  You  can  form 
an  independent  judgment  based  on  the  material  that  our  vice  con- 
suls and  consuls  find  in  the  field. 

Mr.  McCollum.  Isn't  it  true  that  right  now  in  the  process  of 
someone  claiming  asylum  that  it  takes  about  6  months  for  the 
State  Department  to  clear  an  individual,  to  give  an  opinion  back  to 
the  Immigration  officer? 

Secretary  Asencio.  I  know  that  we  are  heavily  impacted  at  the 
Department  of  State  in  this  particular  area.  That  sounds  like  a  rea- 
sonable figure  to  me,  but  I  can't  on  my  own  hook  confirm  it. 

Mr.  McCollum.  Mr.  Nelson  is  about  to  testify,  and  according  to 
his  testimony  there  are  86,000  of  these  pending  and  2,800  a  month 
are  coming  in.  Isn't  it  true  you  have  only  about  five  or  six  people 
or  so  over  there  to  work  this  problem  in  the  State  Department 
right  now? 

Secretary  Asencio.  That  is  correct. 

Mr.  McCollum.  How  can  we  obtain  or  help  you  obtain  getting 
some  more  people?  Isn't  that  part  of  the  problem? 

Secretary  Asencio.  I'm  sure  our  human  rights  people  would  like 
to  see  their  budget  expanded  to  take  that  into  account. 

Mr.  McCollum.  Is  there  any  effort  going  on  currently  internally 
to  shift  any  personnel  around  on  maybe  a  temporary  basis,  because 
this  looks  like  a  thing  that  we  would  like  to  believe  will  be  for  a 
couple  of  years  a  crisis,  and  after  all  of  this  goes  into  effect  we  can 
over  a  period  of  time  gradually  be  reducing  this. 

So  I'm  asking:  Is  there  any  effort  going  on  internally  within  the 
State  Department  to  do  something  about  this  so  we  can  supplement 
it,  or  is  the  entire  burden,  as  you  see  it,  on  us  to  come  up  with  ad- 
ditional funding  and  more  manpower? 


241 

Secretary  Asencio.  I'm  not  specifically  aware  of  any  particular 
internal  developments  in  this  area,  but  I'd  be  happy  to  take  that 
and  give  you  a  report  on  it. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  I'd  appreciate  that  very  much. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you  very  much.  I  would  add  to  what  the 
gentleman  said  that  we  just  had  a  briefing  last  week  from  the 
Bureau  of  Human  Rights  and  Humanitarian  Affairs,  and  they  indi- 
cate their  turnaround  time  on  these  cases  is  now  1  to  3  months, 
and  that  they  have  no  backlog  there.  They  suggest  it  is  in  getting 
the  cases  down  to  the  State  Department  that  some  of  the  backup 
occurs.  So  we  will  want  to  talk  later  on  this  morning  about  that 
point.  But  they  do  also  say  they  could  use  some  more  resources. 

The  gentleman's  time  has  expired. 

The  gentleman  from  New  York  is  recognized. 

Mr.  Fish.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 

That  also  is  my  understanding,  that  we  are  current  except  for 
the  Iranian  asylum  cases  because  they  were  held  up  in  that  process 
for  such  a  long  time. 

One  of  the  things,  Mr.  Ambassador,  that  makes  it  a  pleasure  to 
suit  up  again  on  this  measure,  being  a  little  older  and  a  little 
wiser,  is  to  have  you  once  again  with  us. 

Secretary  Asencio.  My  recollection  is  that  you  always  ask  the 
really  difficult  questions,  Mr.  Fish,  as  a  result  of  your  own  previous 
incarnation  on  this  side  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Fish.  No,  no,  I'm  very  supportive  of  what  you  said.  Let  me 
just  ask  the  details  of  the  consultative  roles  for  the  Department  of 
State  in  your  prepared  testimony.  Are  the  provisions  in  the  Senate 
bill  satisfactory  to  you? 

Secretary  Asencio.  My  recollection  is  that,  yes,  that  is  more  to 
our  liking. 

Mr.  Fish.  I  think  your  idea  of  a  closed  hearing  except  for  an  ex- 
pressed desire  of  the  applicant  makes  a  lot  of  sense. 

On  visa  waiver,  do  I  understand  what  you  like  is  a  2-year  aver- 
age with  no  more  than  2.5  percent  being  reached  in  any  one  of 
those  2  years,  without  counting  exclusion  withdrawals,  and  eight 
countries  instead  of  five? 

Secretary  Asencio.  I'd  love  that. 

Mr.  Fish.  I  was  just  rereading  an  amendment  I  was  going  to  offer 
last  December  when  we  never  got  a  chance  to. 

Secretary  Asencio.  I  will  be  eternally  in  your  debt  if  you'd  get 
that  by. 

Mr.  Fish.  Another  amendment  I'd  like  to  get  your  view  on  which 
hasn't  been  touched  on  today.  The  bill  before  us  provides  that  Gov- 
ernment records  relating  to  claims  of  persecution  shall  be  confiden- 
tial and  exempt  from  disclosure.  With  the  exception  that  discretion 
is  vested  in  the  Secretary  of  State  and  the  Attorney  General  under 
certain  circumstances  to  make  these  records  available  to  the  court, 
what  would  you  think  of  an  amendment  that  would  also  permit  the 
Attorney  General  and  the  Secretary  of  State,  at  their  discretion,  to 
make  such  records  available  to  the  applicant?  The  applicant  may 
be  seeking  asylum  or  refugee  status.  And  I  don't  think  it  was  ever 
the  intention  to  bar  government  authorities  from  providing  access 
to  an  applicant. 


242 

The  literal  reading,  I  think,  of  the  Immigration  and  Nationality 
Act,  section  222(D,  would  result  in  such  a  bar.  Do  you  have  a  view 
as  to  whether  or  not  we  should  change  that  or  maybe  clarify  it? 

Secretary  Asencio.  What  I  am  concerned  about  here  is  not  so 
much  in  the  question  of  asylum  cases.  But  we  do  have  a  number  of 
exclusion  actions  where  presumably,  if  this  is  established  as  a 
precedent,  we  would  get  into  the  unusual  position,  particularly  on 
"28"  cases,  where  in  fact  we  are  dealing  with  information  from 
other  agencies,  and  you  get  into  a  whole  and  very  strange  ball  of 
wax  as  to  whether  those  records  should  be  made  available. 

Mr.  Fish.  But  in  the  exclusion  case,  wouldn't  the  applicant  be  ac- 
tually claiming  asylum  if  we  are  talking  about  claims  of  persecu- 
tion? 

Secretary  Asencio.  What  I'm  saying  is  I  wonder,  if  we  do  this  in 
this  particular  case,  whether  it  would  not  then  weaken  whatever 
argument  we  would  have  for  straight  applications,  not  necessarily 
asylum  cases  but  people  applying  who  are  excludable  under  section 
212(a)(28). 

Mr.  Fish.  I'd  appreciate  it  if  you'd  give  this  some  thought. 

Secretary  Asencio.  I  shall. 

Mr.  Fish.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you  very  much. 

And  thank  you,  Mr.  Ambassador.  We  appreciate  your  help  and 
look  forward  to  working  with  you. 

And  now  we  call  forward  the  Commissioner  of  the  Immigration 
Service,  Mr.  Nelson,  and  any  colleagues  of  his  who  might  be  here. 

Mr.  Nelson,  I  guess  for  the  record  you  might  want  to  identify 
your  colleagues. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HON.  ALAN  NELSON,  COMMISSIONER,  IMMIGRA- 
TION AND  NATURALIZATION  SERVICE,  ACCOMPANIED  BY 
GERALD  R.  RISO,  DEPUTY  COMMISSIONER,  AND  JOSEPH  SAL- 
GADO,  ASSOCIATE  COMMISSIONER,  ENFORCEMENT 

Commissioner  Nelson.  Yes,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  am  pleased  to  be 
here  with  you  today,  and  I  will  apologize  in  advance  for  the  state  of 
my  throat  and  voice. 

I'd  like  to  introduce  the  Deputy  Commissioner,  Gerald  Riso,  to 
my  left;  the  Associate  Commissioner  for  Enforcement,  Joe  Salgado, 
to  my  right. 

In  addition,  let  me  introduce  several  other  people  who  have  been 
deeply  involved  in  planning  for  the  implementation  of  both  em- 
ployer sanctions  and  legalization:  Ben  Ferro,  who  is  our  District  Di- 
rector in  Buffalo,  basically  heads  up  the  unit.  Doing  the  planning 
are  Jack  Shaw  and  Stan  Davis.  There  are  others,  but  those  are  the 
key  ones  I  did  want  to  mention  and  put  in  the  record. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  review  the  prepared  testimony.  I  will  sum- 
marize it,  read  parts,  and  include  references  to  implementation. 
Then  Mr.  Riso  will  proceed  with  the  slide  demonstration  of  our  im- 
plementation planning.  And  after  that  we  will  be  available  for 
questions. 

We  certainly  do  appreciate  the  opportunity  to  be  here  and  testify 
on  H.R.  1510,  the  Immigration  Reform  and  Control  Act  of  1983. 


243 

The  Attorney  General  testified  yesterday,  and  I  would  just  like 
to  supplement  his  testimony,  and  as  I  indicated  we  will  be  talking 
about  some  of  the  implementation  plans  that  have  been  underway. 

Certainly  you  and  your  committee  have  done  a  tremendous 
amount  of  work  on  this  bill  last  Congress  and  early  on  in  this  Con- 
gress, and  I  want  to  commend  you  for  the  bill's  prompt  reintroduc- 
tion,  for  moving  the  hearings  and  for  the  mutual  commitment  of 
the  Congress  and  this  Administration  to  bring  this  bill  to  early 
floor  action  and  successful  passage. 

Certainly  of  the  elements  you  have  in  your  bill,  the  essential 
ones  are:  enhanced  enforcement;  the  meeting  of  humanitarian  con- 
cerns; legalization  and  other  approaches;  and  the  meeting  of  legiti- 
mate needs  of  employers  in  certain  areas  of  temporary  work. 

We  all  are  quite  aware — as  the  recent  U.S.  News  &  World  Report 
article  illustrated — of  the  tremendous  immigration  issues  we  face 
in  this  country.  It  shows  that  we  must  have  effective  limits,  that 
immigration  must  be  a  controlled  process  accomplished  under  pro- 
visions of  the  law,  that  employer  sanctions  is  an  essential  element 
to  eliminate  one  of  the  primary  reasons  why  aliens  enter  this  coun- 
try, which  is  employment.  The  legalization  provisions  recognize  the 
reality  of  the  existing  situation  and  present  a  humanitarian  and 
realistic  approach. 

The  estimates  of  numbers  of  illegals,  of  course,  vary  a  great  deal, 
but  we  are  talking  of  3.5  to  6  million,  or  very  likely  more,  and  the 
fact  that  illegal  entries  in  ever  increasing  numbers  erode  confi- 
dence in  our  immigration  laws.  So  it  is  essential  that  we  have  these 
reforms. 

As  noted,  employer  sanctions  are  clearly  the  cornerstone  of  this 
legislation,  without  which  we  could  not  have  any  effective  immi- 
gration reform  bill.  We  must  deal  with  the  magnet  of  employment 
through  the  employer  sanctions  provision. 

We  think  the  thrust  of  the  provisions  are  very  sound.  There  are 
simplified  forms  to  be  filled  out  by  the  employer  and  by  the  em- 
ployee. We  think  the  provisions  of  the  laws  are  well  written  to 
avoid  some  of  the  discrimination  contentions  that  many  people 
make. 

If  I  could  deviate  for  a  moment,  in  the  Senate  the  other  day  I 
made  some  pretty  strong  comments  and  I'd  like  to  repeat  those 
here  today.  A  lot  of  the  allegations  of  potential  discrimination  in 
employer  sanctions,  frankly,  are  being  used  by  the  people  who 
really  don't  want  a  bill.  We  clearly  now  have  the  possibility  and 
the  actuality  of  discrimination  in  employment  that  exists  under 
current  law.  If  an  employer  does  not  want  to  hire  an  Hispanic,  he 
could  find  a  reason  not  to.  The  new  bill  would  improve  on  that  by 
adding  the  requirements  of  the  forms  and  the  processing,  the  good 
faith  defenses,  so  that  you  would  actually  avoid  some  of  the  dis- 
crimination issues  that  may  exist. 

Father  Hesburgh,  who  has  testified  before  this  committee,  and 
recently  again  in  the  Senate,  has  clearly  supported  your  bill  and 
the  fact  that  it  will  not  create  these  discriminatory  effects. 

I  think  we  all  need  to  recognize  the  reality  that  the  real  discrimi- 
nation problem  is  against  those  American  citizens,  and  perminan- 
ent  residents,  particularly  many  of  Hispanic  or  black  origins  who 
are  deprived  of  jobs  by  reason  of  illegals  being  hired  for  those  jobs. 


244 

That  is  the  issue  we  must  focus  on  and  not  the  smokescreen  of  the 
allegations  of  discrimination  in  employer  sanctions. 

We  do  have  a  number  of  recommendations  regarding  employer 
sanctions.  The  Attorney  General  alluded  to  these.  I  think  we  can 
all  learn,  as  we  go  through  the  process,  that  there  are  what  I  call 
fine-tuning  type  of  recommendations. 

Regarding  criminal  fines,  we  believe  they  should  be  imposed  only 
when  an  injunction  against  repeat  offenses  has  been  violated,  that 
the  provisions  for  administrative  and  judicial  review  of  employer 
sanctions  be  simplified  by  limiting  both  administrative  and  judicial 
appeal  rights,  consistent  with  due  process,  and  also  eliminating  the 
requirement  for  a  subsequent  action  to  secure  payment  after  a  civil 
penalty  has  been  imposed. 

We  look  forward  to  working  with  you  and  the  committee  in  these 
areas  and  others  where  we  think  some  fine-tuning  would  improve 
the  bill. 

In  the  area  of  implementation  of  employer  sanctions — again  the 
slide  show  will  come  up  and  Mr.  Riso  will  describe  that  in  more 
detail — there  are  two  basic  objectives.  We  have  testified  to  this 
before.  We  are  absolutely  convinced  that  the  nature  of  the  Ameri- 
can public  and  our  ethics  are  that  there  will,  in  fact,  be  very  sub- 
stantial voluntary  compliance.  We  look  forward  to  working  closely 
with  employers  to  insure  that  there  is  maximum  voluntary  compli- 
ance to  meet  their  needs  and  to  meet  the  Government's  needs. 
That  is  truly  the  first  focus  of  our  planning  on  employer  sanctions. 

The  other  would  be  to  carefully  target  our  enforcement  actions 
to  have  maximum  impact.  Like  the  Internal  Revenue  Service  or 
any  other  organization,  you  are  not  going  to  catch  all  the  violators. 
By  targeting  the  major  violators,  we  think  we  can  be  very  effective. 

In  the  planning  aspect  for  employer  sanctions,  we  have  set  forth 
the  development  of  policies  and  procedures  for  effective  enforce- 
ment by  INS;  second,  we  are  in  the  process  again  of  identifying  and 
addressing  the  needs  of  employers;  third,  coordinating  efforts  with 
other  Federal  agencies — Department  of  Labor,  Department  of 
Health  and  Human  Services,  and  others,  identifying  and  allocating 
appropriate  resources  for  this  function. 

The  implementation  plan  for  employer  sanctions  has  four  phases: 
First,  an  extensive  public  information  program;  second,  developing 
an  enforcement  strategy  that  I  alluded  to;  third,  the  training  of 
personnel;  and  fourth,  enforcing  employer  sanctions  throughout 
the  United  States  to  achieve  the  highest  impact. 

I  will  defer  additional  comments  to  the  slide  show  and  also  to 
questions  that  will  come  up. 

In  the  area  of  legalization,  clearly  the  dates  in  the  bill,  1977  and 
1980  dates,  we  think  are  solid  and  should  be  adhered  to.  The  stand- 
ards for  eligibility  sometimes  have  not  been  identified.  But  clearly, 
those  who  would  have  felony  convictions  or  three  or  more  misde- 
meanor convictions  would  not  be  eligible  for  legalization.  Addition- 
ally, as  provided  in  existing  provisions  of  the  law,  those  who  would 
likely  be  public  charges  would  be  excluded  from  legalization. 

I  think  those  issues  can  go  a  long  way — and  I  will  speak  later 
about  some  of  the  cost  issues — to  alleviate  some  of  the  concerns  of 
State  and  local  governments. 


245 

Your  bill,  of  course,  has  provisions  in  that  regard  on  the  reim- 
bursement of  the  State  and  local  governments.  The  Attorney  Gen- 
eral did  state  yesterday— and  I  would  repeat— that  we  recognize 
this  is  a  difficult  area  and  a  balancing  between  whose  purse  is  uti- 
lized and  to  what  degree.  But  we  do  think  the  administration's  ap- 
proach to  the  block  grant  is  the  more  effective  one.  We  do  oppose 
the  exception  to  the  Federal  benefit  ineligibility,  and  we  strongly 
oppose  the  provision  authorizing  full  reimbursement  for  State  and 
local  cash  and  medical  assistance. 

These  two  provisions  of  H.R.  1510  would  generate  estimated  costs 
of  $4  billion  between  1984  and  1987  compared  to  the  $1.7  billion  es- 
timated for  the  Senate  bill.  At  a  time  of  very  significant  budget 
austerity,  these  added  costs  must  be  considered  and  cannot  be  justi- 
fied. 

The  policy  for  full  Federal  reimbursement  does  not  provide  in- 
centives for  cost  control,  another  important  factor.  The  administra- 
tion also  opposes  the  authorization  of  Federal  support  for  educa- 
tional assistance  on  behalf  of  legalized  aliens. 

As  noted,  the  administration  does  support  the  inclusion  of  a 
block  grant  program  to  assist  States  and  localities  in  providing 
medical  care  or  other  welfare  services  to  newly  legalized  residents. 
This  appropriately  reflects  shared  Federal,  State,  and  local  respon- 
sibilities for  increases  in  social  welfare  costs  as  may  occur  with  the 
legalization  of  these  aliens. 

An  important  aspect,  we  believe,  in  the  eligibility  is  the  provision 
that  the  applicant  must  provide  evidence  of  past  and  current  em- 
ployment in  order  to  overcome  the  public  charge  group  of  inadmis- 
sibility. Documentation  in  this  and  other  areas  will  be  screened  for 
fraud.  In  addition,  we  will  be  working  with  State  and  local  govern- 
ments so  that  we  are  apprised  when  legalized  aliens  file  for  State 
and  local  assistance.  While  some  temporary  recourse  to  social  wel- 
fare benefits  may  be  warranted,  temporary  residents  must  again 
overcome  the  public  charge  ground  to  adjust  to  permanent  resi- 
dency. 

Again  in  the  implementation  area,  we  are  undergoing  at  INS  a 
very  substantial  planning  under  Mr.  Riso's  direction.  Over  the  last 
6  months,  we  think  we  have  done  a  great  deal.  It  is  a  difficult  task 
with  many,  many  issues  and  uncertainties,  but  we  are  confident 
that  we  can  effectively  implement  the  legalization  provision.  There 
will,  of  course,  be  a  great  number  to  be  legalized  within  a  short 
period  of  time.  But  the  basic  goals,  that  I  know  you  share,  Mr. 
Chairman,  is  that  the  legalization  program,  the  short  time  frame, 
one-time  program,  not  disrupt  the  normal  business  of  INS. 

There  also  must  be  a  simple  nonthreatening  method  for  the 
aliens  to  obtain  information  concerning  their  eligibility  and  to  file 
the  applications.  The  applications  must  be  processed  to  completion 
as  quickly  as  possible.  And  finally,  we  must  be  sure  that  only  eligi- 
ble aliens  receive  such  benefits. 

We  are  going  forward,  as  noted,  with  implementation  plans. 
Again,  a  great  emphasis  on  a  public  information  program  is  a  key 
element  of  that. 

Working  closely  with  voluntary  agencies  and  other  public  or  pri- 
vate organizations  to  develop  means  to  provide  information,  forms, 
and  assistance  to  the  aliens  is  an  important  element. 


246 

Another  element  is  that  the  Immigration  employees  will  be 
available  to  review  the  applications  and  to  conduct  the  appropriate 

interviews. 

And  a  key  point  on  which  we  are  moving  forward,  is  a  great  use 
of  automation— an  automated  processing  center  to  process  what 
could  be  several  million  legalization  claims. 

Clearly,  under  the  public  information  program,  the  emphasis  is 
to  reach  all  the  illegal  aliens  who  do  qualify,  and  to  use  the  volun- 
tary and  other  nongovernmental  agencies  for  that  purpose,  to  be 
sure  also  there  will  be  no  risk  to  aliens  who  appear  for  the  early 
processing  stages. 

Again,  I  will  pass  the  other  pieces  of  testimony  on  that  because  I 
think  it  will  be  covered  during  the  slide  presentation. 

I  will  allude  to  several  recommendations  on  the  legalization, 
again,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  the  fine-tuning  type  of  approach,  that  we 
think  can  make  it  more  workable. 

One  is  what  we  would  call  the  3  plus  12  plan;  that  after  enact- 
ment, the  first  3  months  should  be  the  formal  implementation 
planning  period  with  no  applications  to  be  filed  before  that  time,  to 
allow  us  to  get  all  the  procedures  in  place,  with  the  first  applica- 
tion to  be  filed  90  days  afterwards.  And  then  we  recommend  a  12- 
month  period  for  these  legalization  applications. 

We  would  agree  with  your  bill  and  your  approach  to  protect  the 
prima  facie  eligible  aliens  from  deportation  or  exclusion  during  the 
first  3  months  after  enactment. 

The  area  of  temporary  foreign  workers  is  of  course,  a  difficult 
area  for  everyone.  We  have  the  balancing  of  protecting  the  domes- 
tic workers  and  at  the  same  time  providing  legal  means  for  the 
entry  of  temporary  foreign  workers  in  certain  areas  where  needs 
can't  be  met  by  existing  American  workers. 

I  think  the  word  "transition"  is  key  here,  and  we  would  hope  in 
the  process  with  your  committee  and  the  administration  that  we 
can  work  closely  with  growers  and  organized  labor,  with  the  De- 
partments of  Labor  and  Agriculture,  to  forge  out  a  meaningful 
transition  approach  in  this  area.  It  is  important  that  we  accom- 
plish that. 

The  previous  testimony  of  the  other  witnesses  has  addressed  the 
exclusion  and  asylum  issues.  I  will  make  a  few  comments  on  that. 

I  think  it  might  help— and  I  will  read  this  part  of  the  testimony 
on  page  16— to  explain  the  procedures  using  the  present  exclusion 
cases,  which  also  would  be  followed  under  the  provisions  in  the  bill 
for  summary  exclusion  cases. 

When  an  inspector  finds  someone  excludable,  he  does  not  act  in- 
dependently. His  determination  results  in  the  person  being  re- 
ferred to  a  secondary  inspector,  who  then  reviews  the  case.  The  de- 
cision to  exclude,  if  upheld,  is  still  reviewed  by  the  supervisory  in- 
spector on  duty,  before  the  individual  is  held  for  an  exclusion  hear- 
ing or  before  the  individual  would  be  summarily  excluded.  During 
this  process  an  individual  who  lacks  documentation  but  claims  citi- 
zenship or  permanent  resident  status  would  not  be  held  incommu- 
nicado but  would  be  allowed  to  contact  people  who  could  substanti- 
ate his  or  her  claim.  Only  if  this  effort  produced  no  supportable 
claim  to  citizenship  or  permanent  residence  would  the  individual 
be  summarily  excluded. 


247 

As  explained  in  the  bill  report  on  H.R.  6514,  if  a  person  merely 
claimed  citizenship,  this  would  be  sufficient  to  allow  a  redetermina- 
tion hearing.  This  automatic  hearing  reverses  any  time-saving  that 
might  have  been  garnered  through  the  summary  procedure.  We 
feel  that  summary  exclusion  has  worked  very  well  with  stowaways 
and  crewmen,  who  do  have  an  opportunity  to  claim  asylum  without 
being  summarily  excluded.  And  if  a  determination  cannot  be  made 
before  a  ship  sails,  they  are  paroled  into  the  country  until  a  final 
determination  can  be  made. 

So  we  think  provisions  have  worked  in  those  areas,  and  there  is 
a  solid  basis,  legally  and  morally,  for  that  kind  of  procedure. 

With  regard  to  the  Immigration  Board,  following  the  Attorney 
General's  comments,  we  would  certainly  ask  the  committee  to  con- 
sider several  changes  we  think  are  appropriate. 

There  should  not  be  the  statutory  limit  of  70  immigration  judges. 
That  ties  us  into  a  number.  It  lacks  flexibility.  So  there  should  not 
be  a  specific  number  in  the  bill. 

Likewise,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Immigration  Board  should  be  ca- 
pable of  expansion  by  regulations  of  the  Attorney  General. 

Another  point  is  that  the  withholding  of  the  deportation  provi- 
sions of  section  234  of  the  act  be  repealed  to  eliminate  confusion 
over  a  parallel  asylum  proceeding. 

The  asylum  procedures,  of  which  Mr.  McCollum  and  others  are 
all  aware,  are  difficult.  We  all  want  due  process  and  we  are  all 
committed  to  that.  But  I  think  sometimes  we  are  so  concerned  with 
meeting  all  the  steps  that  we  create  more  of  a  problem  for  the  ap- 
plicant, as  you  mentioned,  Mr.  Chairman,  as  well  as  for  the  Ameri- 
can public.  The  quantum  leap  in  numbers  has  been  huge,  as  indi- 
cated, 86,000  current  asylum  applications.  Those  are  exclusive  of 
the  Cuban  and  Haitian  boat  arrivals,  and  that's  another  30,000  to 
40,000.  And  we  are  receiving,  as  indicated,  2,800  asylum  applica- 
tions a  month.  We  are  processing  more  cases  today,  twice  as  many 
as  year  ago,  but  we  are  still  falling  behind,  so  that  it's  essential 
that  we  upgrade  and  make  more  efficient  the  system. 

We  think  some  of  the  provisions  regarding  a  new  form  of  notice 
of  intention  to  apply  for  asylum  is  additional  paperwork  and  is  un- 
necessary and  can  be  incorporated  into  the  asylum  application 
form. 

I  will  pass  on  the  other  provisions 

So,  in  conclusion,  I  appreciate  the  opportunity  to  be  before  you, 
to  work  with  you  and  your  committee.  I  am  confident,  as  stated  by 
other  witnesses,  that  we  can  get  a  bill,  and  we  will  do  all  we  can  to 
accomplish  that. 

I  think  all  the  interest  groups,  governmental  and  nongovernmen- 
tal, have  that  same  thrust.  We  must  have  reform  legislation  and 
I'm  convinced  we  can  work  effectively  together. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Commissioner. 

[The  complete  statement  follows:] 

Statement  by  Alan  C.  Nelson,  Commissioner,  Immigration  and  Naturalization 

Service 

Chairman  Mazzoli  and  Members  of  the  Subcommittee,  I  am  pleased  to  be  here 
and  to  have  an  opportunity  to  testify  on  H.R.  1510,  the  Immigration  Reform  and 
Control  Act  of  1983.  Yesterday  the  Attorney  General  appeared  before  you  to  testify 


248 

in  support  of  this  important  legislation  and  I  will  supplement  his  comments  and 
provide  specifics  on  the  implementation  plans  developed  by  the  Immigration  and 
Naturalization  Service  (INS). 

It  has  been  almost  one  year  since  I  appeared  before  you  to  express  the  strong  sup- 
port of  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service  for  the  Immigration  Reform  and 
Control  Act  of  1982.  H.R.  1510,  which  represents  a  tremendous  amount  of  work  by 
you,  your  subcommittee,  the  full  House  Judiciary  Committee,  and  many  others, 
seeks  a  well  balanced  approach  to  the  multiple  immigration  problems  that  we  face 
in  this  country.  It  has  the  necessary  elements  of  authority  for  enhanced  enforce- 
ment of  the  law,  humanitarian  concern  for  aliens  who  have  established  strong  equi- 
ties in  the  United  States,  and  provisions  whereby  the  legitimate  needs  of  employers 
may  be  met.  It  has  the  added  advantage  of  providing  a  more  efficient,  workable  law 
which  can  be  implemented  fairly. 

The  conditions  which  have  led  to  our  present  problems  in  immigration  are  nei- 
ther new  nor  unusual.  The  United  States  has  for  many  years  presented  an  attrac- 
tive lure  to  people  from  many  parts  of  the  world.  The  individual  freedoms  of  its  resi- 
dents and  the  opportunities  that  are  available  has  encouraged  immigration  since 
the  very  beginning  of  our  country.  Because  of  this,  we  have  developed  as  a  nation  of 
many  immigrants. 

We  must  recognize,  however,  that  there  are  limits  to  the  number  of  immigrants 
which  the  country  can  reasonably  accommodate.  Most  of  all,  immigration  must  be  a 
controlled  process  accomplished  under  the  provisions  of  law.  The  Immigration 
Reform  and  Control  Act  of  1983  recognizes  this  fact.  By  placing  sanctions  on  hiring, 
the  bill  would  eliminate  one  of  the  primary  reasons  aliens  enter  illegally— employ- 
ment. By  providing  for  the  legalization  of  aliens  who  have  been  productive  members 
of  our  society  for  several  years,  the  bill  recognizes  the  reality  of  this  situation  and 
presents  a  humanitarian  and  realistic  approach.  The  bill  also  recognizes  the  need 
that  some  employers  may  have  for  legal  short-term  foreign  workers  in  agriculture 
or  other  industries  and  it  provides  the  means  by  which  workers  may  be  allowed  to 
enter  our  country.  Now  I  would  now  like  to  comment  on  the  specific  provisions  of 
H.R.  1510. 

ILLEGAL  IMMIGRATION 

Athough  the  actual  number  of  illegal  aliens  is  unknown,  it  is  believed  that  there 
are  from  3.5  to  6  million  illegal  aliens  in  the  United  States.  The  presence  of  large 
numbers  of  illegal  aliens  in  the  United  States  and  the  continuing  entry  of  others  is 
an  unacceptable  situation.  It  has  eroded  confidence  in  our  immigration  laws.  Immi- 
gration must  be  controlled  and  an  orderly  process  must  be  implemented  which  pro- 
tects the  best  interests  of  our  nation. 

EMPLOYER  SANCTIONS 

A  cornerstone  of  the  bill  in  the  employer  sanctions.  The  employer  sanctions  would 
be  imposed  on  individuals  who  knowingly  hire  aliens  who  are  unauthorized  to  work 
in  the  United  States.  As  I  have  stated  before,  the  most  compelling  reason  for  illegal 
immigration  is  employment.  We  feel  that  this  provision  is  absolutely  essential  if  we 
are  to  gain  control  of  our  borders.  Only  through  this  means  can  we  remove  the 
magnet  which  attracts  so  many  illegal  aliens  to  our  country. 

H.R.  1510  requires  that  a  person  who  hires,  recruits,  or  refers  an  individual  for 
employment  must  complete  a  form  for  each  potential  employee  and  attest,  under 
penalty  of  perjury,  that  the  person's  right  to  be  employed  has  been  determined 
through  the  examination  of  documents  which  identify  the  individual  and  show  that 
he  or  she  is  eligible  to  be  employed  in  the  United  States.  An  individual  who  seeks 
employment  in  the  United  States  must  complete  a  form  and  attest  under  penalty  of 
perjury  that  he  or  she  is  a  United  States  citizen,  or  an  alien  who  has  been  admitted 
for  lawful  permanent  residence,  or  an  alien  who  has  been  authorized  for  employ- 
ment. 

The  Administration  believes  that  these  provisions  are  appropriate  as  a  means  of 
controlling  illegal  immigration  to  the  United  States  while  safeguarding  civil  rights. 
Equality  of  employment  opportunity  for  United  States  citizens  and  lawful  perma- 
nent residency  is  not  diminished  by  this  bill.  The  recordkeeping  requirements  are 
balanced  by  the  need  to  deter  illegal  immigration.  As  the  Attorney  General  said  yes- 
terday we  do  have  some  recommendations  to  improve  this  vital  section  of  the  legis- 
lation. Specifically,  we  recommend  that  the  prohibition  on  recruiting  and  referring 
aliens  be  deleted;  that  adequate  civil  penalties  be  imposed,  but  that  criminal  fines 
or  prison  terms  be  imposed  by  a  court  only  when  an  injunction  against  repeat  of- 
fenses has  been  violated;  and  that  the  provisions  for  administrative  and  judicial 


249 

review  of  employer  sanctions  be  simplified  by  limiting  both  administrative  and  judi- 
cial appeal  rights,  consistent  with  due  process,  and  eliminating  the  requirement  for 
a  subsequent  action  to  secure  payment  after  a  civil  penalty  has  been  imposed. 

We  look  forward  to  working  with  you  in  your  crafting  of  these  recommendations. 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF  EMPLOYER  SANCTIONS 

If  H.R.  1510  is  enacted,  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service  will  approach 
its  task  of  enforcing  employer  sanctions  with  two  objectives.  First,  we  believe  that  it 
is  our  responsibility  to  encourage  employers  to  voluntarily  comply  with  the  law. 
Second,  we  try  to  carefully  target  enforcement  actions  so  maximum  impact  is  as- 
sured. Extensive  planning,  that  began  when  the  Administration's  omnibus  immigra- 
tion bill  was  introduced  in  1981,  has  resulted  in  an  assignment  of  the  following  re- 
sponsibilities: 

1.  Articulate  policies  and  procedures  for  effective  enforcement  by  INb  personnel. 

2.  Identify  and  address  the  needs  of  employers. 

3.  Coordinate  efforts  with  other  Federal  agencies. 

4.  Identify,  obtain  and  allocate  resources  which  are  needed  for  an  effective  combi- 
nation of  enforcement  actions  and  compliance  checks. 

The  implementation  plan  of  the  INS  contains  four  phases: 

1.  Engage  in  an  extensive  public  information  program  to  acquaint  employers  and 
the  public  with  the  requirements. 

2.  Develop  an  enforcement  strategy  to  achieve  maximum  effect. 

3.  Train  personnel  in  the  policies  and  procedures. 

4.  Enforce  employer  sanctions  throughout  the  United  States  to  achieve  the  high- 
est impact. 

I  will  discuss  each  of  these  phases  in  more  detail. 

1.  Public  information 

An  extensive  program  has  been  developed  to  provide  information  about  employer 
sanctions  to  employers,  business,  labor  organizations  and  the  public.  The  informa- 
tion will  explain  to  employers  how  to  comply  with  the  law,  and  stress  what  is  ex- 
pected from  employers  to  make  a  good  faith  effort  to  verify  the  eligibility  of  individ- 
uals seeking  employment. 

Instructions  will  be  available  from  a  number  of  sources.  All  employers  will  be 
mailed  a  detailed  description  of  procedures  to  be  followed.  The  media  will  be  used 
for  press  releases,  prepared  announcements,  and  appearances  by  INS  officials.  Bro- 
chures will  be  distributed  at  INS  offices,  and  our  telephone  information  system  will 
provide  taped  responses  to  inquiries  about  employer  sanctions.  Draft  regulations 
have  also  been  prepared  which  define  implementation  procedures. 

2.  Enforcement  strategy 

The  INS  has  determined  that  employer  sanctions  will  be  enforced  within  the 
present  organizational  structure  of  the  agency.  A  broad  strategy  has  been  developed 
to  identify  enforcement  targets  to  achieve  the  greatest  impact.  Operations  will  be 
based  on  historical  data  compiled  against  habitual  employers  of  illegal  aliens,  and 
on  profiles  of  industries  which  are  known  to  attract  illegal  aliens.  In  addition  INS 
and  the  Department  of  Labor  will  cooperate  to  assure  that  compliance  audits  are 
made  on  a  representative  sample  of  all  businesses. 

The  INS  has  also  made  commitments  to  work  with  the  Department  of  Labor  and 
the  Social  Security  Administration,  in  joint  efforts  to  locate  unauthorized  aliens 
who  are  employed  in  the  United  States. 

3.  Training 

Both  INS  personnel  and  Department  of  Labor  compliance  officers  will  perform 
employer  sanctions  investigations.  The  Service  has  developed  training  plans  and 
materials  designed  to  make  officers  aware  of  the  requirements  imposed  on  employ- 
ers, the  authority  of  officers  under  the  employer  sanctions  provisions,  the  eviden- 
tiary requirements  for  prosecution,  and  the  means  to  protect  applicants  from  dis- 
crimination in  the  hiring  process. 

4.  Enforcing  employer  sanctions 

During  the  initial  period  of  education  following  enactment,  the  INS  will  notify 
employers  who  are  found  in  violation  of  the  law  and  advise  them  of  its  provisions. 
Thereafter  the  INS  will  formally  warn  employers  found  to  be  in  violation  of  the  law. 
When  it  is  determined  that  an  employer  has  committed  a  violation  subsequent  to  an 
initial  warning  or  citation,  the  INS  will  issue  a  notice  of  intent  to  fine.  Hearing  pro- 


18-556    O— 83 17 


250 

cedures  have  been  outlined  and  the  INS  plans  to  utilize  automated  data  processing 
techniques  to  facilitate  effective  enforcement.  The  INS  is  developing  guidelines  for 
employers  which  should  assist  the  verification  of  employment  eligibility  and  reduce 
the  likelihood  of  unlawful  discrimination.  Finally,  the  INS  has  identified  procedures 
to  monitor  the  enforcement  of  employer  sanctions  and  is  developing  standards  to 
measure  productivity  and  the  effectiveness  of  the  program. 

LEGALIZATION 

The  provisions  of  H.R.  1510  which  allow  the  legalization  of  specified  aliens  who 
are  in  the  United  States  illegally  are  a  realistic  and  humane  response. 

The  bill  will  allow  permanent  residence  to  be  granted  to  aliens  who  have  been  in 
the  United  States  illegally  since  January  1,  1977.  Temporary  residence  may  be 
granted  to  aliens  who  have  been  here  illegally  since  January  1,  1980,  and  to  Cubans 
and  Haitians  who  have  been  in  the  United  States  on  or  after  specified  dates  and  are 
known  to  the  Immigration  Service.  Aliens  who  initially  qualify  for  temporary  resi- 
dence may  apply  after  three  years  to  have  their  status  changed  to  permanent  resi- 
dent if  they  continue  to  reside  in  the  United  States  and  remain  eligible  under  the 
other  provisions  of  law. 

Aliens  who  do  not  meet  the  standards  for  admission  to  the  United  States  would 
not  qualify  for  permanent  or  temporary  residence.  This  includes  aliens  who  have 
been  convicted  for  any  felony  or  three  or  more  misdemeanors  committed  in  the 
United  States  and  aliens  who  have  assisted  in  the  persecution  of  any  person  or  ac- 
count of  race,  religion,  nationality,  membership  in  a  particular  social  group,  or  polit- 
ical opinion.  Similarly,  aliens  who  are  not  able  to  overcome  the  "public  charge"  ex- 
clusion of  the  Act  will  not  be  eligible  for  legalization. 

BENEFITS  TO  PERMANENT  AND  TEMPORARY  RESIDENTS 

Aliens  granted  permanent  residence  under  this  provision  will  not  be  eligible  for 
three  years  for  financial  assistance  furnished  under  Federal  law.  Those  granted 
temporary  residence  will  also  be  ineligible  for  assistance  during  the  period  of  tempo- 
rary residence  and  three  years  after  they  are  adjusted  to  permanent  resident  status. 
Persons  requiring  assistance  because  of  age,  blindness,  or  disability,  and  those  re- 
quiring medical  assistance  because  of  serious  illness  or  injury  or  in  the  interest  of 
public  health  would  be  exempted  from  this  ineligibility.  The  legislation  also  author- 
izes 100  percent  reimbursement  to  States  for  the  costs  of  public  assistance  provided 
to  eligible  legalized  aliens  as  well  as  payments  to  state  educational  agencies  to  assist 
in  providing  educational  services  to  eligible  legalized  aliens. 

As  the  Attorney  General  stated  yesterday,  the  Administration  opposes  the  excep- 
tion to  federal  benefit  ineligibility.  We  are  strongly  opposed  to  the  provision  author- 
izing full  reimbursement  for  state  and  local  cash  and  medical  assistance  to  legalized 
aliens.  Those  two  provisions  would  generate  estimated  costs  of  $4  billion  between 
1984  and  1987  compared  to  the  $1.7  billion  estimated  for  the  Senate  bill.  At  a  time 
when  the  Nation  requires  budget  austerity,  such  extraordinary  added  costs  cannot 
be  justified.  Further,  a  policy  for  full  federal  reimbursement  does  not  provide  incen- 
tives for  cost  control.  The  Administration  also  opposes  authorization  of  federal  sup- 
port for  educational  assistance  on  behalf  of  legalized  aliens. 

The  Administration  supports  the  inclusion  of  a  block  grant  program  to  assist 
states  and  localities  in  providing  medical  care  or  other  welfare  services  to  newly  le- 
galized residents.  This  appropriately  reflects  shared  federal,  state,  and  local  respon- 
sibilities for  increases  in  social  welfare  costs  as  may  occur  with  the  legalization  of 
these  aliens. 

Our  legalization  implementation  plans  make  it  explicit  that  qualifymg  illegal 
aliens  must  provide  evidence  of  past  and  current  employment  in  order  to  overcome 
the  public  charge  ground  of  inadmissibility.  Documentation  in  this  and  other  areas 
will  be  screened  for  fraud.  In  addition  we  will  be  working  with  state  and  local  gov- 
ernments so  that  we  are  apprised  when  legalized  aliens  file  for  state  and  local  as- 
sistance. While  some  temporary  recourse  to  social  welfare  benefits  may  be  warrant- 
ed, temporary  residents  must  again  overcome  the  public  charge  ground  to  adjust  to 
permanent  residency. 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF  LEGAUZATION 

The  proposed  legislation  provides  that  aliens  who  believe  they  qualify  for  legaliza- 
tion may  apply  for  this  benefit  during  a  12-month  period  beginning  October  1,  1983. 
It  further  provides  that  arrangements  may  be  made  with  qualified  voluntary  agen- 


251 

cies  for  the  purpose  of  making  the  provisions  of  law  known  to  the  public  and  for  the 
receiving  of  applications  for  legalization. 

Assuming  that  this  legislation  is  enacted,  the  INS  will  be  responsible  for  legaliz- 
ing a  great  number  of  aliens  in  a  short  period  of  time.  Extensive  planning  has  been 
done  since  the  Administration's  Omnibus  Immigration  Bill  was  introduced  in  1981. 
Our  planning  has  been  based  on  a  number  of  goals.  We  believe  that  the  program 
should  not  disrupt  the  normal  business  of  the  INS.  The  program  should  provide  a 
simple,  non-threatening  method  for  aliens  to  obtain  information  concerning  their 
eligibility  and  to  file  applications.  Applications  should  be  processed  to  completion  as 
quickly  as  possible.  Finally,  we  work  to  ensure  that  the  procedures  guarantee  that 
only  eligible  aliens  receive  benefits  under  the  law. 

A  comprehensive  implementation  plan  has  already  been  developed  that  incorpo- 
rates these  principles.  We  are  confident  that  the  legalization  program  contemplated 
by  H.R.  1510  can  be  fairly  and  efficiently  administered. 

The  implementation  plan  of  the  INS  contains  four  basic  components  or  phases: 

1.  An  extensive  public  information  program  to  acquaint  the  public  with  the  bene- 
fits available  under  the  law  and  the  means  by  which  the  benefits  may  be  applied 

for. 

2.  Facilities  will  be  set  up  in  all  parts  of  the  nation,  with  the  cooperation  of  volun- 
tary agencies  and  other  public  or  private  organizations,  to  provide  information, 
forms,  and  assistance  to  aliens  who  wish  to  know  whether  they  qualify  for  legaliza- 
tion and  to  file  applications. 

3.  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service  employees  will  be  available  to  review 
applications  for  legalization  and  to  conduct  interviews  of  the  applicants  if  necessary. 

4.  An  automated  processing  center  will  be  developed  to  complete  the  processing  of 
applications  received  from  the  nationwide  facilities  established  around  the  nation. 

I  will  discuss  each  of  these  components. 

1.  Public  information 

An  extensive  public  awareness  program  has  been  developed  to  provide  informa- 
tion concerning  the  legalization  benefits  which  will  be  available  under  the  law.  The 
information  will  stress  that  the  government  wishes  to  reach  all  illegal  aliens  who 
qualify  under  the  law  and  that  a  means  will  be  provided  through  non-governmental 
agencies,  for  aliens  to  obtain  specific  information  concerning  their  eligibility.  The 
information  will  further  stress  that  there  will  be  no  risk  to  aliens  who  appear  at  the 
agency  facilities  seeking  information  and  no  enforcement  activity  will  take  place  in 
or  around  the  facilities. 

In  order  to  reach  the  maximum  population,  the  media  will  be  used  to  disseminate 
information  as  soon  as  the  law  becomes  effective.  This  will  include  press  releases, 
prepared  announcements  for  radio  and  television,  and  appearances  by  INS  officials 
on  radio  and  television  stations  and  networks. 

Brochures  will  be  printed  and  made  available  at  all  INS  offices,  community  orga- 
nizations, and  in  other  public  places  for  illegal  aliens  to  obtain. 

Notices  will  be  printed  and  posted  in  public  facilities. 

A  telephone  system  will  be  installed  at  INS  offices  to  provide  taped  responses  to 
inquiries  concerning  legalization. 

2.  Organizational  structure  to  provide  information,  forms,  and  assistance  to  legaliza- 

tion applicants 

Agreements  will  be  made  with  voluntary  agencies  and  other  public  and  private 
organizations  to  provide  facilities  and  personnel  to  advise  aliens  concerning  their 
eligibility  for  legalization  to  provide  them  with  the  necessary  application  forms,  and 
to  assist  them  in  preparing  and  submitting  their  applications.  The  facilities  will  be 
operational  no  later  than  90  days  following  enactment.  The  number  and  location  of 
the  facilities  will  be  determined  based  on  an  estimate  of  the  distribution  of  the  il- 
legal alien  population. 

The  personnel  of  the  cooperating  organizations  will  be  trained  by  the  INS  con- 
cerning the  general  and  technical  provisions  of  the  law.  Continued  technical  and 
management  assistance  by  INS  personnel  will  be  provided  to  the  organizations 
throughout  the  program.  A  separate  INS  management  and  technical  assistance 
structure  will  be  established  to  assist  the  cooperating  organizations  and  to  carry  out 
the  other  phases  of  the  program. 

3.  INS  field  operational  structure 

INS  personnel  will  be  made  available  at  the  cooperating  organization  facilities  or 
at  INS  facilities  for  the  purpose  of  receiving  applications.  These  employees  will 
assist  the  organizations  in  any  way  possible  and  will  review  applications  for  legal- 


252 

ization  received  at  the  facilities.  When  necessary,  individual  applicants  will  be  inter- 
viewed by  these  employees. 

Following  review  of  the  applications  by  INS  personnel  and  interviews  if  neces- 
sary, a  preliminary  determination  of  approval  or  denial  will  be  made  and  the  appli- 
cations will  be  forwarded  to  a  processing  center  for  all  subsequent  action. 

The  legalization  program  management  structure  will  be  designed  to  eliminate  to 
the  extent  possible,  the  adverse  impacts  such  a  program  would  have  on  the  existing 
INS  structure.  It  will  be  separate  from  the  existing  program  structure  but  will  still 
maintain  the  interrelationship  with  existing  programs  necessary  to  maintain  policy 
and  operational  consistency  and  efficiency. 

4.  Central  processing 

A  center  will  be  established  in  an  appropriate  location  to  complete  the  processing 
of  applications  received  from  the  various  field  facilities.  The  center  will  be  automat- 
ed and  will  perform  most  or  all  of  the  functions  necessary  to  complete  the  applica- 
tion process.  These  functions  will  include  the  required  record  search,  creation,  con- 
solidation, and  maintenance;  performing  the  necessary  security  checks;  preparing 
notices  regarding  the  action  taken  in  individual  cases;  and  collecting  and  furnishing 
statistical  and  management  reports.  Upon  the  final  processing  of  applications  and  a 
determination  of  eligibility  by  INS  personnel,  an  identification  card  will  be  prepared 
and  furnished  to  the  applicants. 

Although  the  legalization  program  will  be  unprecedented  in  its  size  and  impact, 
the  INS  is  confident  that  it  can  be  carried  out  effectively.  The  program  will  encour- 
age the  maximum  number  of  eligible  aliens  to  come  forward  and  at  the  same  time 
insure  that  only  those  aliens  who  qualify  are  granted  this  extraordinary  benefit. 

RECOMMMENDATIONS 

As  the  Attorney  General  testified,  the  Administration  is  in  complete  support  of 
the  premise  behind  the  legalization  provisions  in  H.R.  1510.  We  do  have  certain  rec- 
ommendations, however,  which  we  feel  will  make  those  provisions  more  workable. 

Rather  than  an  application  period  which  will  begin  on  a  specified  date  and  run 
for  12  months,  we  recommend  a  12-month  application  period  to  commence  no  sooner 
than  three  months  after  enactment.  Such  language  would  be  flexible  and  would  give 
INS  time  to  publish  regulations,  enter  into  the  necessary  contractual  arrangements, 
and  begin  the  public  information  campaign. 

We  feel  that  is  is  important  that  the  statute  contain  language  which  would  pro- 
tect prima  facie  eligible  aliens  from  deportation  or  exclusion  during  the  first  three 
months  after  enactment. 

TEMPORARY  FOREIGN  WORKERS 

The  Administration  supports  the  goals  of  H.R.  1510  which  are  to  protect  domestic 
workers  from  adverse  impacts  due  to  foreign  labor  and  to  provide  a  legal  means  for 
the  entry  of  temporary  foreign  workers  when  a  need  is  clearly  shown  that  cannot  be 
met  by  American  workers.  This  will  be  extremely  important  if  we  are  to  have  work- 
able sanctions  against  the  hiring  of  illegal  aliens.  This  will  help  to  avoid  the  harm- 
ful effects  that  shortfalls  of  domestic  workers  would  have  on  some  employers,  par- 
ticularly agricultural  employers,  during  the  transition  period  between  the  introduc- 
tion of  employer  sanctions  and  development  of  new  sources  of  American  workers. 

UNLAWFUL  TRANSPORTATION  OF  ALIENS 

H.R.  1510  would  amend  Section  274  of  the  Immigration  on  Nationality  Act  to 
make  it  unlawful  to  bring  an  undocumented  alien  to  the  United  States.  This  will 
resolve  the  problem  created  by  the  court  decision  in  U.S.  v.  Anaya,  et  al.,  No.  80- 
231-CR-EPS,  where  persons  who  transported  Cubans  during  the  Mariel  boatlift 
were  found  not  to  have  violated  Section  274. 

EXCLUSION  OF  UNDOCUMENTED  AUENS 

Section  121  properly  restricts  the  right  to  an  exclusion  hearing  to  documented 
aliens.  Aliens  lacking  entry  documents  would  be  subject  to  summary  exclusion  by 
an  immigration  inspector,  under  proper  supervisory  control,  similar  to  the  existing 
procedures  for  crewmen  and  storaways.  There  would  be  no  judicial  appeal  in  these 
cases,  although  individuals  could  ask  for  a  redetermination  hearing  before  an  ad- 
ministrative law  judge.  However,  an  alien  applying  for  asylum  would  be  treated  dif- 
ferently to  assure  that  no  one  qualifying  as  a  refugee  would  be  returned  before  a 
determination  of  their  claim  was  made. 


253 

We  are  grateful  that  during  the  mark-up  of  this  section  in  the  97th  Congress,  the 
subcommittee  amended  this  language  to  clarify  the  authority  of  the  government  to 
inspect  all  persons  entering  the  United  States,  whether  they  were  at  a  port  of  entry 
or  not.  However,  the  full  Committee  added  a  redetermination  hearing  before  an  ad- 
ministrative law  judge,  which  has  the  potential  of  undercutting  the  summary  exclu- 
sion procedure. 

Let  me  explain  the  procedures  used  in  present  exclusion  cases  which  would  also 
be  followed  in  summary  exclusion  cases.  When  an  inspector  finds  someone  summari- 
ly excludable,  he  does  not  act  independently.  His  determination  results  in  the 
person  being  referred  to  a  secondary  inspector,  who  reviews  the  case.  The  decision 
to  exclude,  if  upheld,  is  still  reviewed  by  the  supervisory  inspector  on  duty,  before 
the  individual  is  held  for  an  exclusion  hearing  or  before  the  individual  would  be 
summarily  excluded.  During  this  process  an  individual  who  lacks  documentation 
but  claims  citizenship  or  permanent  resident  status  would  not  be  held  incommunica- 
do, but  would  be  allowed  to  contact  people  who  could  substantiate  his  or  her  claim. 
Only  if  this  effort  produced  no  supportable  claim  to  citizenship  or  permanent  resi- 
dency, would  the  individual  be  summarily  excluded. 

As  explained  in  the  bill  report  on  H.R.  6514,  if  a  person  merely  claimed  citizen- 
ship this  would  be  sufficient  to  allow  a  redetermination  hearing.  This  automatic 
hearing  reverses  any  time  saving  that  might  have  been  garnered  through  the  sum- 
mary procedure.  Summary  exclusion  has  worked  well  with  stowaways  who  do  have 
an  opportunity  to  claim  asylum,  without  being  summarily  excluded.  If  a  determina- 
tion cannot  be  made  before  a  ship  sails  they  are  paroled  into  the  country  until  a 
final  decision  is  made. 

U.S.  IMMIGRATION  BOARD 

H.R.  1510  contains  a  section  that  creates  a  United  States  Immigration  Board  and 
establishes  an  immigration  judge  system.  There  is  also  a  conforming  provision 
which  sets  up  a  transitional  period  to  effect  changes  in  personnel  and  jurisdiction 
from  the  present  Board  of  Immigration  Appeals  and  the  immigration  judge  system. 

We  recommend  that  the  statutory  limit  of  70  immigration  judges  be  removed, 
that  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  Immigration  Board  be  capable  of  expan- 
sion by  regulations  of  the  Attorney  General,  and  that  the  "withholding  of  deporta- 
tion" provisions  of  section  243  of  the  Immigration  and  Nationality  Act  be  repealed 
to  eliminate  confusion  over  a  parallel  asylum  process. 

ASYLUM  PROCEDURES 

It  is  not  surprising  that  proposals  dealing  with  asylum  occupy  a  prominent  part  of 
your  bill.  It  is  an  established  fact  that  the  present  asylum  system  has  been  shown  to 
be  seriously  defective.  The  defects  that  have  come  to  light  since  the  enactment  of 
the  Refugee  Act  are  simply  the  result  of  a  quantum  leap  in  the  numbers  of  persons 
who  have  applied  for  asylum.  Today,  there  are  approximately  86,000  asylum  appli- 
cations pending  before  the  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service  exclusive  of 
those  received  from  the  Cuban  and  Haitian  boat  arrivals.  New  applications  are  filed 
at  the  rate  of  2,800  per  month. 

H.R.  1510  provides  that  asylum  cases  may  be  considered  only  by  administrative 
law  judges  who  are  specially  designated  by  the  United  States  Immigration  Board  as 
having  been  given  special  training  in  international  relations  and  international  law. 
The  number  of  the  judges  who  may  be  designated  for  this  purpose  is  limited  to  70. 
Appeals  from  adverse  decisions  could  be  made  to  the  United  States  Immigration 
Board,  and  in  the  context  of  exclusion  and  deportation  cases  to  circuit  courts  of  ap- 
peals. 

The  bill  also  creates  a  new  form  of  notice  of  intention  to  apply  for  asylum.  We 
believe  that  this  new  notice  is  unnecessary,  and  can  be  incorporated  into  an  asylum 
application  form.  The  additional  time  to  perfect  an  asylum  application  would  be  pre- 
ferred to  two  separate  forms. 

LABOR  CERTIFICATION 

We  recognize  the  inadequacies  of  the  present  labor  certification  system  which  has 
been  criticized  as  being  too  slow  and  complicated.  H.R.  1510  provides  a  streamlined 
alternative  to  the  present  individual  certification  process  by  allowing  the  Depart- 
ment of  Labor  to  certify  shortages  or  an  over-supply  of  U.S.  workers  in  certain  occu- 
pations, using  national  job  market  data  without  reference  to  particular  job  open- 
ings. Presently,  an  employer  is  able  to  obtain  labor  certification  only  by  advertising 
a  specific  job  opening  and  being  unable  to  fill  that  position  with  a  U.S.  worker.  H.R. 


254 

1510  allows  the  Department  of  Labor  to  expand  the  existing  "Schedule  A"  list  of 
precertified  occupations  on  a  broad  scale  and  to  issue  labor  certification  without  ref- 
erence to  a  specific  job  opening.  Although  a  job  offer  is  required  before  a  labor  certi- 
fication may  be  issued,  this  currently  may  be  waived  in  third  preference  cases  by 
the  Attorney  General  when  he  deems  it  to  be  in  the  national  interest.  We  believe 
this  should  be  continued,  since  full-time  year-long  job  offers  are  not  realistic  for 
many  artists  and  performers  of  exceptional  merit. 

OTHER  PROVISIONS 

Students 

H.R.  1510  requires  a  foreign  student  in  the  United  States  to  leave  the  country  and 
reside  in  the  country  of  his  or  her  nationality  or  last  foreign  residence  for  two  years 
before  he  or  she  could  immigrate  to  the  United  States.  This  requirement  could  be 
waived  in  the  case  of  students  in  certain  fields  of  study  if  offered  teaching,  research, 
or  technical  positions  and  waiver  applications  were  filed  prior  to  September  30, 
1989. 

We  believe  these  provisions  are  preferable  to  placing  numerical  limits  on  the 
waivers  granted,  which  would  require  the  INS  to  establish  a  complicated  accounting 
and  allocation  system  to  control  the  number  of  waivers  granted  each  year.  It  has 
been  our  experience  that  waiver  provisions  are  not  abused  and  that  the  absence  of  a 
numerical  limit  would  not  result  in  the  granting  of  an  excessive  number  of  applica- 
tions. 

G-4  special  immigrants  and  nonimmigrant  visa  waiver 

H.R.  1510  addresses  the  problem  of  employees  of  international  organizations  and 
their  dependents  who  often  spend  many  years  in  the  United  States.  It  provides  spe- 
cial benefits  for  some  of  these  individuals.  The  bill  provides  for  nonimmigrant  waiv- 
ers for  visitors  from  some  countries.  We  support  this  visa  waiver  program. 

CONCLUSION 

In  conclusion,  I  want  to  express  my  appreciation  to  the  chairman  for  the  introduc- 
tion of  H.R.  1510  and  the  early  hearing  schedule.  As  Commissioner  of  the  Immigra- 
tion and  Naturalization  Service,  I  am  particularly  aware  of  the  critical  need  for  the 
reforms  contained  in  this  legislation.  Those  reforms  provide  both  the  vehicle  and 
the  opportunity  to  rededicate  ourselves  to  the  fair  and  firm  enforcement  of  our  im- 
migration laws.  The  Immigration  and  Naturalization  Service  looks  forward  to  work- 
ing with  you  and  all  the  members  of  the  subcommittee  in  this  endeavor. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Let  me  begin  the  questioning,  and  then  we  will  go 
to  Mr.  Riso  for  the  presentation,  which  is  very  important.  I  com- 
mented on  the  fact  that  you  have  done  a  lot  of  work  in  a  6-month 
period,  which  I  think  is  an  answer  to  the  argument  which  is  made 
that  INS  and  the  Government  really  do  not  want  to  enforce  this 
bill  anyway.  In  fact,  there  is  a  very  stern  effort  under  way  to  en- 
force the  law. 

Let  me,  Mr.  Commissioner,  bring  up  just  a  few  things,  and  then 
maybe  we  can  get  on  with  some  of  the  other  questions. 

One  of  the  criticisms  weighed  against  the  bill  constantly  last 
year  was  that. 

You  are  not  going  to  get  anjrwhere  unless  you  improve  enforcement  at  the  border; 
you  are  not  going  to  get  anjrwhere  unless  you  are  willing  actually  to  be  very  zealous 
about  enforcing  employer  sanctions;  you  are  not  going  to  get  anywhere  with  the  le- 
galization program  unless  you  have  people  to  process  the  paper  and  do  the  work; 
and,  Ron,  we  don't  see  anything  in  your  bill  which  indicates  that  you  are  serious  or 
that  the  Administration  is  serious  about  this;  there  is  no  money;  there  are  no 
people. 

We  might  have  the  same  kind  of  criticism  this  year,  because 
there  is  nothing  in  the  INS  request  for  fiscal  year  1984  that  takes 
into  consideration  this  bill. 

Now,  were  we  to  take  the  bit  in  our  teeth  and  decide  we  are 
going  to  put  something  in  this  bill  right  now,  regardless  of  what 


255 

the  Attorney  General  said  yesterday,  can  you  give  me  some  idea  of 
what  you  need,  how  much  you  would  need— people  and  money— to 
do  the  good  job  of  employer  sanctions,  legalization,  enhanced  en- 
forcement at  the  border,  and  taking  care  of  the  asylum  program? 
Do  you  have  figures  on  it? 

Commissioner  Nelson.  Well,  we  have  been  workmg  on  some  fig- 
ures, Mr.  Chairman,  but  I  don't  know  that  we  have  any  definitive 
figures  for  you  now.  But  let  me  make  a  couple  of  general  com- 
ments, if  I  might.  . 

Certainly  your  thrust  of  putting  money  and  positions  in  the  bill 
is  one  vehicle  to  do  it,  no  question  about  that.  As  the  Attorney 
General  testified  yesterday,  the  administration  is  committed  to  en- 
forcement of  the  immigration  laws,  that  we  are  prepared  and  will 
be  prepared  to  submit  a  supplemental  for  1983,  if  it  passes  this 
year,  or  in  a  budget  amendment  for  1984.  So  I  don't  think  there  is 
any  doubt  that  there  will  be  money  and  resources  advanced  by  the 
administration  to  meet  the  purposes  of  this  bill,  no  matter  how  you 
best  set  there. 

Certainly  aiso,  as  you  know,  the  third  continuing  resolution  for 
fiscal  1982  did  add  substantial  money  for  enhancing  border  enforce- 
ment, I  think  meeting  the  commitment  of  this  administration.  And 
there's  $30  million  in  the  1984  budget  for  data  processing,  commu- 
nications, and  a  National  Record  Center,  which  likewise  ties  into 
the  whole  picture  here.  We  must  upgrade  our  operation  and 
become  modernized. 

So  I  think  we  have  put  a  lot  of  money  into  enhancing  our  oper- 
ation. We  will  need  more,  no  question  about  it. 

I  am  really  not  in  a  position  to  give  you  specific  figures  because, 
as  you  know  very  well,  we  have  to  go  through  the  Department  of 
Justice.  But  I  can  assure  you,  I  have  personally  been  having  a 
number  of  conversations  with  the  Attorney  General  and  others— 
and  of  course,  you  have  met  with  him,  and  others  have— that  we 
have  submitted  a  number  of  materials  from  INS  to  the  Department 
of  Justice.  We  are  developing  some  cost  and  personnel  options,  and 
as  we  move  down  the  stream  we  will  certainly  be  pleased  to  share 
them  with  you. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Let  me  just  try  a  few  things  on  for  size  here,  Mr. 
Commissioner.  I  think  it  is  in  some  material  that  you  sent  us  last 
year  that  suggested  total  Federal  budget  expenditures  to  imple- 
ment the  then  H.R.  6514— this  was  for  fiscal  years  1983  through 
1986.  Using  fiscal  year  1983  as  an  example,  had  the  bill  been 
passed  in  the  last  Congress,  you  estimated  $76  million  for  the  legal- 
ization program  and  $25.5  million  basically  for  employer  sanctions. 

If  we  were  to  put  something  approximating  those  figures  in  this 
bill,  do  you  think  that  would  enable  you  to  operate  your  shop 
better,  to  do  the  kind  of  job  we  are  looking  for  here? 

Commissioner  Nelson.  I'm  not  such  a  diplomat  as  Ambassador 
Asencio  is,  but  obviously  resources  are  important.  As  I  mentioned, 
the  administration  recognizes  that,  as  you  do.  Any  help  we  can  get, 
of  course,  will  be  utilized. 

Mr.  Mazzoll  Let  me  ask  you  this:  When  I  was  down  at  your 
shop  the  other  day  when  we  had  our  briefing,  I  think  you  said 
something  to  the  general  effect  that  you  could  process  adequately 


256 

and  deploy  correctly  1,200  people  a  year.  Was  that  the  figure,  or 
am  I  way  off? 

Commissioner  Nelson.  For  what? 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  For  your  border  patrol  people,  for  enforcement. 

Commissioner  Nelson.  We  have  roughly  2,200  border  patrol  per- 
sonnel now. 

Mr.  Mazzoll  Well,  there  was  a  figure  that  stuck  in  my  head.  I 
guess  obviously  it  was  not  1,200,  but  some  figure  of  what  you  could 
train  down  at  Glyco  and  deploy  and  take  care  of. 

I  am  told  there  are  1,200  new  people  that  you  could  absorb  per 
year;  is  that  correct? 

Commissioner  Nelson.  Let  me  ask  Mr.  Salgado.  Are  you  talking 
about  border  patrolmen  now? 

Mr.  Mazzoll  I'm  talking  about  all  people,  but  of  course  we  are 
talking  separate  employer  sanctions  and  legalization  as  a  new  re- 
sponsibility. Now,  I'm  talking  about  all  responsibilities,  whether 
you  put  them  at  the  border,  investigations,  inspections,  all  the 
things  you  do.  In  my  head  was  1,200  for  people  you  could  take  in, 
train,  and  deploy  per  year.  Is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Salgado.  I  believe  our  conversation  was  directed  toward  the 
training  of  border  patrolmen,  and  we  felt,  depending  upon  Glen- 
coe's  mandate,  we  could  assimilate  at  least  300  to  400  new  border 
patrolmen  per  year,  and  I  don't  believe  I 

Mr.  Mazzoll  So  you  didn't  talk  in  terms  of  the  other  one. 

Mr.  Salgado.  No;  I  did  not. 

Mr.  Mazzoll  Could  you  take  1,200  people  in  the  space  of  1  fiscal 
year — take  a  man  or  woman,  train  him  or  her,  and  deploy  him  or 
her  in  all  your  different  activities? 

Commissioner  Nelson.  That,  of  course,  would  be  a  10-percent  in- 
crease in  our  staffing.  I  think  we  do  a  pretty  good  job,  as  we  did 
last  year,  in  filling  the  vacancies,  a  concern  you  had.  We  did  that. 
That's  a  big  increase,  but  we  have  big  responsibilities.  So  again, 
whatever  the  final  budget  figures  come  out,  we  will  do  that,  of 
course. 

Mr.  Mazzoll  As  far  as  asylum,  have  you  any  prelirninary  figures 
on  what  that  would  require — the  new  change  in  adjudication? 

Commissioner  Nelson.  I  don't  have  those,  Mr.  Chairman.  You're 
talking  about  asylum  officers  now? 

Mr.  Mazzoll  Right. 

Commissioner  Nelson.  I  don't  have  those  handy.  As  I  say,  of 
course,  we  hope  the  bill  does  not  limit  the  number  of  judges.  That 
would  be  an  important  thing.  Some  of  this  conversation  you  had 
with  Ambassador  Asencio  early  today. 

If  I  can  take  off  from  that  for  a  moment,  internally  we  are  look- 
ing now  or  are  in  the  process  of  analyzing  what  we  can  do  internal- 
ly to  better  improve  the  asylum  processing  on  our  part,  the  State 
Department's  part,  and  so  forth,  and  we  think  that's  important. 
And  we  are  making  some  progress.  There  are  a  lot  of  issues. 

Mr.  Mazzoll  Let  me  ask  you  this,  Mr.  Commissioner:  You  men- 
tioned that  if  legalization  were  to  take  effect,  if  you  have  the  3 
months  plus  12  months  arrangement,  that  people  who  are  here  and 
have  a  prima  facie  case  would  be  entitled  to  stay  and  would  be  pro- 
tected for  those  3  months. 


257 

What  constitutes  a  prima  facie  case?  And  beyond  that,  since  that 
is  certainly  not  subjective,  is  there  any  thought  given  to  just  not 
doing  any  internal  interior  enforcement— enforcing  at  the  border 
and  ports  of  entry,  and  so  forth,  but  to  just  give  the  benefit  of  the 
doubt  for  that  period  of  time  as  one  guarantee  to  the  detractors 
here  who  say, 

"You  just  have  a  three-month  period,  and  that's  going  to  give  you  an  opportunity 
to  grab  everybody  because  you  won't  have  the  forms  and  we  won't  really  be  able  to 
prove  who  we  are  or  where  we  are. 

Commissioner  Nelson.  Sometimes  it's  a  little  hard  to  accept  the 
critics,  because  I  think  they  get  a  little  fired  up  and  assume  the 
negative  all  the  time. 

I  can  just  use  this  opportunity  to  say,  in  my  year  and  a  half  here, 
I'm  very  proud  of  the  Immigration  Service  and  the  people  who  do 
the  job  under  a  lot  of  pressures,  while  in  any  organization  of  10,000 
people  you  have  some  bad  apples.  Yet,  overall  they  do  a  fine  job.  So 
I  think  to  impugn  any  motives  and  so  forth  is  a  mistake  that  some 

people  make. 

Now,  as  to  whether  we  would  defer  any  kind  of  activity  during 
this  period,  I  think  that  might  be  going  too  far,  Mr.  Chairman.  I 
think  that  might  be  taking  away  from  our  responsibility  to  enforce 

the  law. 

As  to  what  the  definition  of  prima  facie  would  be,  that  would  be 
something  we'd  have  to  work  out,  but  I  think  again  it's  a  good-faith 
thing,  recognizing  in  that  first  3  months  that  people,  if  they  are 
likely  to  be  applying— that  would  be  my  interpretation— we  would 
probably  defer  any  action. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Let  me  just  suggest,  because  we  will  talk  about  this 
later,  that  it  is  my  judgment  and  personal  feeling  that  in  order  to 
overcome  what  is  a  good-faith  concern  and  which  would  be  legiti- 
mate criticism  of  the  fact  there  is  a  3-month  kind  of  a  no-man's 
land  or  a  limbo  in  there,  everything  should  be  done  basically  to 
accept  a  person  at  that  point  and  wait  for  the  engagement  of  the 
law  itself,  which  requires  the  storefront  outreach  to  be  set  up,  and 
the  paperwork  to  be  developed. 

It  seems  to  me  these  people  ought  to  be  protected  and  given  that 
opportunity. 

Let  me  ask  you  about  outreach.  A  person  is  unwilling  to  come  to 
talk  to  the  Immigration  officer,  so  we  say: 

"You  don't  have  to.  We  are  setting  this  thing  up  so  you  can  go  to  a  local  church, 
in  the  basement. 

They  say: 

Yes,  but  if  you  look  at  this  thing  it  says  there's  an  INS  person  who  is  on  call  and 
is  going  to  be  giving  advice  to  the  people,  and  the  INS  person  is  the  one  I'm  really 
afraid  of.  I  don't  want  to  go  anywhere  where  there's  an  INS  guy. 

Can't  I  tell  the  people,  the  detractors,  the  criticizers  of  the  bill 
that, 

Your  constituents  would  presumably  never  have  to  see  an  INS  person  until  after 
the  voluntary  agency  or  after  this  intermediary  party  has  given  a  once-over  pretty 
carefully  to  the  documents  and  papers  and  given  advice.  Only  after  making  a  judg- 
ment generally  that  you  qualify  would  you  then  go  downtown  to  talk  to  the  INS 
person,  but  the  INS  would  be  available  to  the  voluntary  agency  to  give  advice  and 
to  discuss  things. 


258 

Commissioner  Nelson.  Well,  Mr.  Riso  is  leaning  over  anxious  to 
answer  that  question. 

Mr.  Riso.  There  was  that  impression  some  time  ago,  and  because 
of  these  concerns  we  have  rethought  our  position  from  a  processing 
point  of  view.  So  it  comes  down  to  the  point  at  which  the  applica- 
tion is  formally  submitted,  that  we  have  been  working  out  ways  in 
which,  if  they  were  filling  out  the  application,  if  they  were  getting 
counseling  but  not  yet  decided,  do  we  physically  have  to  be  there? 
And  that  has  now  become  a  grayer  area  than  it  had  been  before 
where  we  were  saying,  "We  want  to  be  onsite."  But  we  want  to  be 
onsite  at  the  point  where  the  application  is  submitted. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  can  accept  that.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  beef 
in  the  INS,  so  long  as  the  preliminary  information  training  is  done 
directly  with  these  contact  people.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  contact 
person  and  the  applicant  ought  to  have  an  opportunity  to  talk 
freely  away  from  the  INS.  If  that  contact  person,  having  been 
trained  by  you  in  what  to  look  for,  says,  "In  my  judgment  you  qual- 
ify," then  at  some  point  that  person  or  the  papers  have  to  get  into 
the  process. 

Let  me  ask  your  permission  to  suspend  for  just  a  few  seconds. 
Mr.  McCollum  is  coming  back,  and  then  he  will  begin  some  ques- 
tions. I  want  to  go  over  and  vote,  and  I'll  be  back  in  just  a  second. 

[Whereupon,  a  short  recess  was  taken.] 

Mr.  McCollum.  The  hearing  will  come  to  order. 

Commissioner,  it  is  my  pleasure  to  be  here  with  you  today.  The 
chairman  delegated  me  to  reopen  the  hearing  in  his  absence  until 
he  gets  back  from  the  vote.  I  have  a  number  of  questions  I  want  to 
ask.  I  didn't  have  the  privilege  of  hearing  all  your  answers  to  his 
questions,  so  I  hope  I'm  not  repetitious  in  any  way. 

I'd  like  to  start  off  by  following  through  on  the  area  that  I  was 
talking  with  Ambassador  Asencio  about.  I  didn't  have  the  privilege 
of  being  involved  in  consultations  last  week.  To  what  extent  do  we 
have  delays  today  in  asylum?  I  know  you  have  86,000  backed  up. 

How  long  do  you  estimate  it  takes  for  a  person  today,  of  the  2,800 
that  come  in  every  week  to  start  the  asylum  process,  before  the 
routine  procedure  would  be  finished,  that  the  hearing  officer  would 
complete  his  task,  and  we'd  be  ready  for  everybody  to  be  satisfied 
with  the  result  unless  there  were  an  appeal  taken  through  the 
court  system? 

Commissioner  Nelson.  You  have  asked  a  lot  of  points  in  that 
question,  so  if  I  might  just  work  at  it  and  follow  up. 

It  is  difficult  to  come  up  with  a  particular  time  frame.  There  is 
no  question  that  volume  has  been  the  biggest  factor.  The  volume 
has  increased  dramatically.  There  is  no  question  that  a  lot  of 
people  are  using  the  asylum  process  as  a  way  around  immigration 
laws.  There  is  no  question  that  we  have  an  administrative  problem 
in  processing  them  within  INS  and  within  the  State  Department. 
In  some  cases  the  State  Department  is  really  slow  returning  advi- 
sory opinions.  In  other  cases,  they  are  pretty  fast  and  then  the 
delays  are  in  our  shop.  It  is  a  very  complex  area  because  there  are 
so  many  new  claims  and  so  many  legal  and  other  maneuvers  avail- 
able. 

But  if  I  could  answer  it  in  a  general  sense,  Mr.  McCollum,  there 
is  no  reason  it  can't  or  shouldn't  be  a  more  rapid,  fair,  and  efficient 


259 

procedure.  The  basic  asylum  claim  that  the  person  has — and,  of 
course,  the  applicant  has  the  burden  of  proof— in  most  cases  can  be 
presented  fairly  and  openly  with  all  the  testimony  required  in  the 
matter  of  a  day  or  so  and  in  many  cases  less.  And  there  is  no 
reason,  in  theory  for  lengthy  delays. 

If  I  can  just  ramble  a  minute,  there  are  a  couple  of  things  we  are 
looking  at  administratively.  I  was  in  San  Francisco  recently  look- 
ing through  some  of  the  procedures  there.  We  ought  to  be  able  to 
expedite  some  of  those  cases  where  people  have  merely  filed  a 
claim  and  haven't  provided  any  backup  information.  Like  the 
court,  there's  a  certain  point  at  which  you  throw  a  case  out  if  they 
don't  come  up  with  the  backup  evidence. 

There's  a  lot  that  could  be  done. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  I'm  not  being  critical  in  any  way  of  what  is 
being  done.  I  am  so  concerned  about  the  law  that  we  are  about  to 
pass  and  the  speedup  of  the  process  and  the  backlog  that  I  want  to 
find  out  as  much  as  I  can — and  the  committee  does — I'm  sure,  to 
find  ways  we  could  assist  you  in  that. 

I  wasn't  able  to  be  here  yesterday  morning,  but  I  understand  the 
Attorney  General  indicated — I  think  maybe  you  repeated  it  here 
somewhere  in  your  testimony — that  the  timetable  we  have  in  the 
bill  is  not  practical  as  far  as  the  time  it  takes  to  handle  all  these 
processes  at  each  level. 

Well,  obviously  with  86,000  backed  up  right  now,  I  can  under- 
stand why  at  the  moment  it  might  not  look  like  it  is  reasonable. 
But  what  I'm  concerned  with  is  to  get  some  grip  on  what  we  are 
dealing  with.  I've  heard  a  figure  used  by  some  other  people  in  your 
shop  of  about  2  years.  Isn't  that  fairly  reasonable? 

Commissioner  Nelson.  In  some  cases  it  does  take  2  years.  I  can't 
give  you  an  across-the-board  figure. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  Each  one  would  vary,  but  it  wouldn't  be  impossi- 
ble that  the  average  time  of  these  86,000  is  going  to  be  2  years. 

Commissioner  Nelson.  One  reason  for  that,  Mr.  McCollum,  of 
course,  is  the  process.  I  wish  I  had  it  with  me,  but  there  is  a  paper 
I  had  recently  called,  "The  Odyssey  of  an  Asylum  Application," 
and  it  listed  about  20  steps  that  a  case  goes  through  under  current 
asylum  processing  procedures — the  administrative  contact,  the  im- 
migration judge,  being  referred  back  and  forth  for  rereview,  up 
through  the  court  process.  So  you  can  have  all  these  20  steps.  And 
this  is  what  is  going  to  take  tremendous  time.  In  addition,  some  of 
the  delays  are  administrative — no  question  about  it. 

Mr.  McCollum.  The  chairman  has  reentered.  I'd  like  to  be  able 
to  continue. 

Mr.  Mazzoll  Surely. 

Mr.  McCollum.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Nelson,  in  light  of  the  same  area,  I  got  some  figures  from  my 
office  from  other  folks  at  yours — I  don't  remember  whether  it  was 
the  district  office  or  who  gave  us  the  figures  a  couple  of  weeks 
ago — with  regard  to  what  had  happened  to  the  people  who  were  re- 
leased from  Krome,  because  I  was  interested  in  the  asylum  issue.  If 
I  recall  correctly,  there  were  1,170  or  so  folks  released  from  Krome. 
The  figures  given  to  me  were  that  66  of  those,  as  of  2  weeks  ago, 
had  initial  asylum  hearings,  and  that  of  those,  only  six  had  been 
determined,  that  is,  that  the  final  ruling  had  come  out.  And  of 


260 

those,  I  think  the  figures  were  that  three  had  been  granted  politi- 
cal asylum  and  three  had  been  excluded.  And  there  were  a  few 
more  of  the  1,100  or  so  who  had  voluntary  returned  to  Haiti. 

You  may  not  have  this  on  the  tip  of  your  tongue,  but  do  you  be- 
lieve those  figures  are  roughly  correct? 

Commissioner  Nelson.  I  don't  have  the  figures  handy,  but  I 
think,  in  ballpark  terms,  they  are  correct.  The  key  issue — and  the 
very  concern  we  had,  which  I  think  we  expressed  to  this  forum  and 
others — was  unless  there  was  some  impetus  for  people  to  have 
asylum  hearings  that  they  would  continually  delay. 

In  many  cases,  we  have  people  in  that  group  coming  back  for  the 
fifth  time  before  the  immigration  court,  not  having  obtained  a 
lawyer;  and  they  keep  coming  back  and  coming  back  and  coming 
back.  And,  of  course,  a  current  injunction  requires  that  they  must 
have  a  lawyer  in  order  to  have  a  hearing.  In  many  cases,  with  law- 
yers, they  had  not  filed  the  appropriate  papers,  or  they  asked  for 
continuances  or  found  reasons  not  to  afford  the  hearing. 

Delay  also  occurs  because  many  of  these  cases  we  often  see,  are 
simply  clearly  not  valid  claims — although  there  are  some,  no  doubt 
about  it.  And,  of  course,  some  of  the  interest  groups  are  arguing  all 
they  can  to  delay  the  hearing  process  and  then  the  appeal  process. 
As  you  point  out,  of  those  hearings  held,  there  were  very  few  final 
orders  because  they  can  appeal  up  to  the  Board  of  Immigration  Ap- 
peals, and  then  the  court  system. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  Judge  Spellman  is  still  withholding  his  ruling  on 
whether  or  not  he  is  going  to  lift  the  requirement  on  pro  bono  at- 
torneys, is  he  not? 

Commissioner  Nelson.  I  believe  that  is  coming  up  this  Friday. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  Now,  of  the  86,000  that  you  use  as  a  figure  of 
those  who  are  backlogged  in  asylum  claims,  what  percentage  are 
the  Haitians?  What  percentage  are  the  Cubans  from  the  boatlift? 

Commissioner  Nelson.  I  don't  have  those  figures  handy,  Mr. 
McCoUum,  although  we  can  certainly  provide  those  to  you. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  I'd  appreciate  it  if  you  would. 

Commissioner  Nelson.  The  Cubans  and  Haitians  are  generally 
above  the  86,000.  While,  some  of  the  Haitians  would  be  in  that,  but 
the  Cubans  generally  would  be  added  on  to  that  figure  because 
they  are  in  a  separate  category.  So  in  the  86,000,  there  would  be 
Haitians,  Salvadorans,  and,  of  course,  a  real  cross-section  of  nation- 
alities. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  We  don't  have  that  many  Haitians  over  here  so 
we  are  talking  about  having  probably  70,000  or  so  asylum  seekers 
that  are  not  in  the  headlnes  every  day.  They  are  just  what  today 
has  become  routine;  is  that  correct? 

Commissioner  Nelson.  The  Salvadorans  are  in  the  headlines  a 
great  deal. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  Well,  yes,  but  not  nearly  to  the  extent  the  others 
were  profiled.  I'd  appreciate  it  if  you  could  furnish  that  informa- 
tion. 

Commissioner  Nelson.  We  have  those  figures  available  and  I'd 
be  happy  to  provide  them. 

Mr.  McCollum.  Also,  there  was  an  indication  in  U.S.  News  and 
World  Report  this  week  that  there  are  quite  a  substantial  number 
still  crossing  our  Mexican  border,  of  which  I  think  all  of  us  on  the 


261 

subcommittee  are  fully  aware.  How  accurate  were  the  figures  in 
that  publication? 

Commissioner  Nelson.  I  did  read  the  article.  I  was  very  im- 
pressed with  the  article.  I  have  not  personally  nor  had  staff  check 
the  exact  accuracy  of  the  figures,  but  I  would  just  like  to  leave  my 
comments  in  general  form.  I  think  it  was  a  well-done  article,  well- 
balanced,  and  one  that  can  properly  raise  the  concerns  of  the 
American  public  for  the  need  for  immigration  reform. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  I  won't  be  around,  unfortunately,  I  don't  believe, 
next  Tuesday  or  whenever  you  have  your  oversight  hearing;  I  wish 
I  were.  But  I'd  appreciate  your  providing  the  subcommittee  with 
corroboration,  denial,  or  some  kind  of  information  about  the  fig- 
ures they  used  as  to  how  correct  they  were. 

Today  at  the  Mexican  border,  do  you  have  any  estimate  or  idea 
on  how  many,  in  percentages,  are  really  getting  across?  Are  10  per- 
cent of  those  trying  getting  across?  Two  percent?  Fifty  percent? 
What  is  a  realistic  estimate  today  as  opposed  to  2  years  ago  when 
the  chairman  and  I  visited  Chula  Vista — and  others  on  this  sub- 
committee— that  we  are  actually  apprehending? 

Commissioner  Nelson.  That,  of  course,  is  very  hard  to  know.  By 
the  nature  of  the  business,  you  are  never  going  to  know  how  many 
you  get  and  how  many  get  through.  I'd  like  to  refer  to  Mr.  Salgado. 

Mr.  Salgado.  That  really  would  be  a  speculative  answer.  We 
could  indicate  that  the  recent  implementation  of  the  Anta-6  in- 
fraray  scope  at  Chula  Vista  revealed  that  in  one  portion  of  that 
sector  alone  we  were  apprehending  approximately  90  to  93  percent 
of  those  seen  attempting  to  cross  the  border.  Now,  that  is  only  one 
geographic  location,  utilizing  the  Anta-6  scope.  That  gives  you  an 
indication,  at  least  in  that  particular  area,  what  our  apprehension 
rate  is  vis-a-vis  those  that  are  gaining  entry.  But  that  is  only  limit- 
ed to  the  use  of  those  scopes  in  a  small  geographical  area.  Other 
than  that,  it  would  be  pure  speculation  because  many  of  those  who 
get  through  we  don't  see  or  they  are  smuggled  in.  But  I  don't  have 
a  ratio  for  you,  sir. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  Last  Friday  I  happened  to  have  a  very  quiet 
lunch  with  General  Chapman  down  in  Florida  when  he  was  visit- 
ing down  there,  former  INS  Commissioner.  I  didn't  seek  it  out  for 
this  reason;  it  sort  of  came  up  by  accident. 

But  in  the  process  of  discussing  things  over  lunch,  he  told  me 
there  was  a  report  done  for  him  several  years  back  on  how  to  seal 
the  border  basically  between  Mexico  and  the  United  States,  in 
which  he  claimed  his  recollection  was  that  that  report  showed  we 
could  seal  it  up  to  90  percent  by  adding  this,  that,  or  the  other 
equipment,  much  of  which  I  suspect  we  have  been  working  at 
adding  over  the  years. 

Do  either  of  you  gentlemen  have  any  recollection  of  such  a 
report  done  for  Chapman  back  in  those  years? 

Commissioner  Nelson.  I  don't.  I  have  had  several  meetings  with 
General  Chapman  and  that  has  not  come  up. 

Mr.  Salgado.  I'm  not  privy  to  it. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  If  it  could  be  resurrected  out  of  the  files,  he  was 
very  sure  that  it  had. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  gentleman's  time  has  expired. 


262 

Let  me  yield  myself  a  moment  and  then  we'll  proceed  to  the  im- 
plementation area. 

You  mentioned  in  your  statement,  Mr.  Commissioner,  that  you 
believe  the  bill  ought  to  go  back  to  the  pattern  and  practice  ap- 
proach for  criminal  fines  rather  than  the  current  reading  of  the 

bill. 

We  put  a  citation  step  in.  So  we  have  the  first  6  months  of  educa- 
tion, then  we  have  a  citation— a  guaranteed  first  bite— then  you 
have  your  civil  penalties,  and  finally  criminal  penalties. 

Do  you  think  you  really  must  go  to  a  pattern  and  practice  before 
you  get  into  the  criminal  area?  Do  you  think  we  need  to  resort  to  a 
pattern  and  practice  where  you  do  now  have  a  citation  step?  It 
seems  to  me  the  employer  is  going  to  be  so  much  on  notice  that  if 
you  have  the  citation  and  then  you  get  him  for  a  couple  of  civil 
remedies,  it  just  seems  to  me  at  that  point  you  almost  should  be 
able  to  go  into  the  criminal  side  of  it. 

Commissioner  Nelson.  I  think  that  was  in  the  area  of  the  fine- 
tuning  recommendations,  so  let  me  start  at  the  other  end,  if  I 

might. 

I  think  what  is  in  the  bill  is  excellent,  the  idea  of  a  stair-step  ap- 
proach. The  notice  and  the  citation  is  outstanding,  because  it  gives 
the  time  to  implement  and  notify,  and  that's  very  good.  Also,  the 
progressive  nature  of  the  penalties  is  good. 

I  think  one  of  the  concerns— having  practiced  criminal  law 
myself—is  you  can  get  into  a  lot  more  burden-of-proof  problems 
and  difficult  problems  in  the  criminal  ones  and  you  really  want  to 
go  after  the  bad  actors.  And,  of  course,  the  injunction  would  be  a 
very  good  way  to  do  it,  to  establish  the  notice  and  the  intent,  and 
after  you  did  that  you  would  be  in  a  better  position  to  go  forward 
in  the  criminal.  And  as  a  practical  matter,  I  would  imagine  that 
would  happen  a  good  part  of  the  time,  and  whether  you  wanted  to 
make  that  a  requirement  or  not  I  really  think  is  debatable. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Let  me  ask  you  this:  Yesterday  we  had  testimony 
from  a  Member  of  the  House  who  suggested  that  the  coverage  of 
our  bill  was  incomplete.  The  Government  itself  was  not  covered 
under  the  employer  sanctions  because  there  is  a  penalty  charged 
even  if  the  employer  is  referred  by  a  State  or  Federal  agency. 

Commissioner  Nelson.  I  just  came  in  when  the  Congressman 
was  testifying  to  that.  In  fact,  it  was  intriguing.  So  I'm  only  talking 
off  the  top  of  my  head.  I  think  there  is,  of  course,  some  concern 
that  you  don't  let  public  employers  or  employment  service  agencies 
get  by  with  what  you  wouldn't  allow  private  entities  to  do.  First  of 
all,  I  really  don't  know  that  that  is  a  big  problem,  that  the  State 
employment  service  is  referring  a  lot  of  illegal  aliens.  In  fact,  one 
of  the  Congressmen— I  think  the  Congressman  from  Washington- 
last  year  proposed  that  if  illegal  referrals  came  from  a  State  em- 
ployment service,  this  would  be  a  defense  to  the  employer  ^yho 
could  be  charged  with  employer  sanction  violations,  and  we  think 
that  might  have  some  merit. 

So  I  guess  I  would  only  say  that  we  ought  to  look  at  that  issue 
more.  I  think  you  raised  the  question,  Mr.  Chairman,  whether  le- 
gally you'd  have  the  same  kind  of  basis  to  go  after  the  State  gov- 
ernment or  whatever  on  sanctions.  There  are  a  lot  of  issues  there. 


263 

But  I  think  the  point  raised  is  that  we  need  to  tighten  up  overall, 
including  the  State  employment  service. 

If  you  will  give  me  a  chance,  I'll  run  a  little  bit  more.  I  think  one 
of  the  aspects  we  need  to  work  at  are  the  job-related  aspects.  We 
have  had  a  couple  of  pilot-type  approaches  with  State  employment 
services  to  have  them  come  in  behind  INS  to  fill  vacancies  generat- 
ed by  illegals  who  were  taken  off  the  job.  Because,  let's  face  it, 
there  is  an  impact  on  our  unemployment  situation,  and  more  of 
that  we  think  can  and  should  be  done. 

So  I  think  all  this  area  needs  to  be  looked  at  and  addressed. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  wish  you  would  give  us  some  advice  on  that  be- 
cause it  was  certainly  not  our  intention  to  exempt  the  Government 
from  the  reach  of  this  act.  It  was  simply  to  exempt  nonfee-produc- 
ing  activity  from  the  reach  of  the  act.  And  if  somehow  inadvertent- 
ly we  have  made  this  thing  imbalanced  as  a  result,  we  want  to  go 
back  to  that. 

Commissioner  Nelson.  I  would  be  convinced  that  within  Govern- 
ment regulation,  short  of  any  statutory  requirement,  you  could  be 
sure  that  State  employment  services  have  screening  procedures  to 
avoid  being  libeled  for  violating  the  spirit  if  not  the  intent. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Maybe  now,  Mr.  Riso,  you  could  give  us  a  slide 
presentation  here.  If  I  understand,  this  is  the  way  you  would  seek 
to  implement  this  act  when  it  becomes  law.  Is  that  the  idea? 

Mr.  Riso.  That's  basically  it,  yes. 

I  might  add  that  this  plan  was  prepared  largely  for  us  to  commu- 
nicate internally  within  INS  and,  secondly,  to  be  able  to  communi- 
cate with  affected  publics.  So,  therefore,  some  of  the  things  I  will 
cover  are  pretty  old  hat  to  you. 

As  we  see  it,  we  have  two  fundamental  areas  of  concern  in  imple- 
mentation. One  is  control  of  illegal  immigration  and,  second,  legal- 
ization of  those  individuals  who  have  been  here  for  a  period  of  time 
illegally  but  who  would  qualify  for  participation  in  the  legalization 
program. 

The  results  in  a  shorthand  way  are:  We  are  looking  to  provide  a 
disincentive  for  the  employer  and  at  the  same  time  to  deal  hu- 
manely and  realistically  with  those  who  have  been  here  quite  some 
time. 

The  general  provisions — and  as  I  say,  we  find  this  slide  useful  ex- 
ternally, form  the  basis  of  the  planning  assumptions  which  I  will 
get  into. 

We  feel — and  I  will  deal  first  with  employer  sanctions  and  then 
Mr.  Salgado  can  handle  some  of  the  details  on  questions — that  em- 
ployer sanctions  is  the  important  addition  to  our  enforcement  tool. 
And  it's  one  of  three  elements  to  control  the  U.S.  borders. 

As  we  see  employer  sanctions  it's  the  addition  of  new  procedures 
to  current  operations: 

Increased  liaison  with  other  agencies — not  new,  but  increased  li- 
aison. 

Clearly,  a  period  of  time  of  employer  and  public  education. 

Monitoring  compliance. 

Establishing  a  data  base  on  what  the  experiences  have  been  with 
different  employers  and  groups  of  employers. 

And  our  intent  administratively  would  be  to  focus  the  program 
upon  high-impact  employers,  the  habitual  violator,  work  from  well- 


264 

developed  leads,  work  from  fraud  cases,  and  clearly  follow  up  on 
previous  violations. 

Mr.  Mazzou.  So  in  a  sense,  Mr.  Riso,  you  and  the  Department 
would  seek  to  target  this  program.  One  of  the  criticisms  we  have 
had  raised  is  rather  than  have  this  affecting  100  percent  of  the 
American  employers,  or  almost  100  percent,  let's  just  target  it  to 
those  that  have  shown  somehow  in  some  way  that  they  have  not 
complied  with  the  law  in  the  past.  And  we  say  we  may  not  be  able 
to  go  that  far.  But  is  it  correct  that  administratively  you  will  target 
the  application  of  your  resources  to  the  question  of  enforcement  of 
employer  sanctions? 

Mr.  Riso.  Recognized  targets  may  change  as  events  change. 

The  employer  responsibilities.  A  good-faith  examination.  We  are 
not  expecting  them  to  become  experts  in  the  identification  of  fraud- 
ulent documents. 

Our  planning  basically  and  our  level  of  planning  on  employer 
sanctions  is  in  some  instances  affected  by  that  6-month  education 
period.  But  as  the  Commissioner  said,  look  upon  it  as  three  phases: 
one,  an  extensive  employer  education,  and  the  planning  of  how  and 
where  to  target  to  get  the  most  effective  use  of  our  resources,  and 
how  we  realistically  monitor.  We  plan  to  spend  approximately  6 
months. 

After  the  first  6  months— from  the  6  months  to  the  first  year- 
initial  enforcement,  warnings,  second  violations,  and  third  viola- 
tions, working  toward  being  fully  implemented.  After  1  year,  with 
the  temporary  verification  system,  and  all  of  the  support  systems 
develops,  the  program  can  move  forward. 

We  have  made  some  assumptions  that  most  employers  will  vol- 
untary comply  if  we  make  compliance  pragmatically  easy  for  them. 

Let  me  go  to  the  legalization  part  because  this  is  more  extensive, 
because  our  planning  is  predicated  on  getting  to  this  first. 

In  concept  form,  imagine  a  process  in  which  the  applicant  comes 
forward  with  the  application  and  the  necessary  documentation, 
with  the  assistance  of  a  voluntary  agency  or  other  community  or- 
ganization, receives  counseling  and  some  assistance— what  do  you 
provide?  Do  you  qualify  or  don't  you  qualify?— leading  to  the  sub- 
mission of  an  application  to  INS. 

The  step  between  the  preparation  of  the  application  and  the  sub- 
mission of  it  might  be  separately  and  physically  apart.  We  have 
been  looking  at  that. 

What  we  would  do  is  go  through  a  two-step  review.  We  would 
review  immediately  upon  submission  of  the  application  by  having 
INS  people  there  and  coming  to  an  initial  determination  of  eligibil- 
ity subject  to  file  checks.  We  would  then  forward  the  application  to 
a  central  processing  facility,  do  the  necessary  file  checks,  and  then 
make  a  final  determination. 

There  would  be  a  notice  to  both  the  community  or  voluntary  or- 
ganization on  the  status  of  each  application,  and  clearly  a  notice  to 
the  applicant  of  the  final  outcome.  Where  denied  there  would  be 
the  appeal  process  available  to  the  person. 

Now,  we  have  made — it  is  important  I  say  this — some  planning 
assumptions  in  designing  our  system.  We  are  not  assuming  this  is 
the  right  number.  What  we  have  done  is  tested  our  system  in 
terms  of  what  volume  can  our  system  handle.  And  one  of  our  plan- 


265 

ning  assumptions  is  that  there  will  be  2.3  million  who  will  apply. 
There  are  6  million  now  in  the  United  States,  1.6  million  applying 
for  temporary  residence,  and  750,000  applying  for  permanent  resi- 

dence. 

Now,  it  ought  to  be  said,  if  our  assumptions  are  not  right,  we 
have  a  give  or  take  of  about  a  half  million  before  our  system  would 
be  put  under  pressure. 

Now,  the  safety  valve  in  any  assumption  you  make  is  the  rate  at 
which  people  come  forward.  If  they  all  come  forward  the  first  day, 
the  magnitude  of  the  problem  is  substantially  greater  than  if  they 
come  forward  in  a  reasonably  even  period  of  time. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  They  have  to  come  out  within  a  year? 

Mr.  Riso.  That's  right.  You  can  assume  a  year. 

And  finally  the  problem— if  we  all  waited  to  the  last  day  in  order 
to  pay  income  tax,  you'd  have  another  problem. 

But  there's  a  great  deal  of  flex  at  that  2.3  million,  and  we've  esti- 
mated about  a  half  million  in  either  direction. 

We  have  made  four  other  assumptions— really  five.  The  one  not 
stated  here  is  that  we  can  do  this  job  and  we  will  do  this  job,  and 
we  will  not  accept  "cannot." 

So  with  that  in  mind,  we  have  made  four  other  assumptions  to 
direct  our  planning. 

We  will  try  to  keep  most  of  that  work  out  of  the  normal  oper- 
ation of  INS.  We've  got,  as  you  well  know,  backlogs  in  other  inter- 
nal issues  we  are  dealing  with.  We'd  like  not  to  add  that  to  the  ex- 
isting structure. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Mr.  Riso,  let  me  ask  you  this:  You  mentioned  that 
legalization  would  probably  precede  your  activities  in  the  employer 
sanctions.  We  would  not  have  a  situation  where  we  would  neglect 
to  do  things  like  enforce  the  border  and  add  internal  activities  as 
we  are  legalizing  because  that  could,  then,  send  out  the  signal  to 
people,  "Come  on  in  because  we  are  devoting  all  of  our  time  now  to 
processing  paperwork  and  we  will  be  very  neglectful  at  the 
border."  We  don't  have  that  situation. 

Mr.  Riso.  That  was  not  our  intention. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  In  other  words,  you  are  going  to  have  the  normal 
amount  of  enforcement.  The  particular  stress  will  be  trying  to 
handle  the  paperwork  on  the  activities  of  legalization,  but  not  to 
the  extent  that  enforcement  will  be  hampered  or  reduced. 

Mr.  Riso.  It  is  our  intention  to  handle  this  separately  and  not  to 
disrupt  our  normal  operations. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  All  right. 

Mr.  Riso.  The  second  planning  assumption  is  that  most  of  the  ex- 
penses of  the  legalization  program  will  be  borne  by  the  applicants, 
and  that  will  be  recovered  through  being  charged  a  filing  fee. 

We  have  planned  that  the  initial  processing  will  involve  qualified 
voluntary  and /or  community  organizations  with  a  substantial 
amount  of  counseling  and  application  preparation  clearly  in  their 
hands— for  two  reasons:  one  you  cited  earlier,  the  inhibition  about 
dealing  directly  with  us;  secondly,  the  volume  of  work.  We  don't 
want  to  hire  that  number  of  people  unless  we  have  to. 

Finally,  an  internal  issue.  For  us  to  receive,  review,  and  give  the 
applicant  back  the  necessary  pieces  of  paper  he  or  she  needs,  we 


i8-f;sfi    o— sa 1R 


266 

have  to  establish  a  central  processing  facility  in  ADP.  And  it  is  im- 
portant to  us  as  a  reminder. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Well,  this  is  one  time  where  we  have  some  knowl- 
edge beforehand  of  what  our  responsibilities  are,  so  designing  a 
program  and  getting  the  form  set  up  ahead  of  time  should  present 
no  real  problem  to  the  professionals.  Sometimes  coming  into  the 
situation  where  you  have  inherited  a  whole  tradition  of  handling  a 
matter  makes  it  much  more  difficult  to  automate  that. 

Mr.  Riso.  This  should  pose  no  real  difficulty. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Except  for  the  one,  of  course,  of  money.  We  are 
talking  about  trying  to  give  you  what  you  need  in  the  way  of 
money  and  people.  But  technically  there  should  be  no  problem,  is 
that  correct? 

Mr.  Riso.  That  is  true.  In  fact,  the  irony  will  be  that  this  process 
may  work  smoother  and  better  among  all  operations. 

Getting  back  to  our  assumptions,  our  responsibilities — we  would 
like  to  be  able  to  train  those  people  or  organizations  in  the  nature 
of  the  program  and  their  responsibilities,  retain  for  INS  that  deter- 
mination of  eligibility,  monitor  the  program,  and  then  a  massive 
coordination  of  the  public  information  effort  which  is  critical  to  the 
success  of  this  program. 

Within  the  district  office — and  I'd  like  to  cite  this — it  is  our 
intent  to  keep  the  operation  apart  from  the  district  office,  but 
there  will  be  involvement  of  the  districts  in  the  following  ways: 

Clearly  administrative  support  of  those  INS  people  working  with 
the  voluntaries. 

A  role  in  the  information  program,  clearly. 

Processing  of  file  requests. 

They  will  participate  in  investigation  of  any  fraud  and  any 
denied  cases. 

And  ongoing  liaison  so  that  we  from  Washington  get  a  clear  view 
of  what  is  in  fact  happening  within  each  of  the  cities  where  we 
think  our  volumes  are  going  to  be. 

But  these  district  offices  will  not  be  charged  with  administering 
the  legalization  program. 

Let  me  go  back,  bringing  coals  to  Newcastle.  We  have  assumed 
additional  resources  will  be  provided  to  keep  the  operations  sound. 

At  the  site — these  are  the  areas  that  have  become  grayer  because 
of  legitimate  concerns  expressed  by  organizations  we  have  been 
dealing  with  and  trying  to  balance  their  need  to  retain  consistency 
with  their  advocacy  program  and  our  need  to  maintain  the  integri- 
ty of  the  process.  And  so  consequently  we  see  for  ourselves  techni- 
cal assistance  if  needed,  but  clearly,  as  an  INS  responsibility,  re- 
viewing the  application  when  it  is  submitted,  reviewing  samples  of 
applications  for  temporary  residence,  interviewing  any  question- 
able candidate,  and  interviewing  a  random  sample  of  all  candi- 
dates. 

It  is  our  contention  that  there  will  not  be  overt  enforcement  at 
any  site  where  the  person  is  going  in  to  receive  assistance,  counsel- 
ing, guidance,  and  filling  out  an  application.  There  has  been  con- 
cern expressed  that  we'd  be  in  a  shorthand  way  hiding  behind  the 
screen.  That  is  not  our  intention. 

Our  responsibilities  at  an  INS  processing  facility  are  really  the 
processing  function:  Receipt  of  the  paper,  background  checks,  a 


267 

final  review,  if  that  is  what's  necessary,  and  where  there  has  been 
fraud,  where  there  is  a  denial,  referral  to  the  field  for  enforcement 
activities. 

We  will  also  notify  both  the  agency  sponsoring  that  application 
and  the  individual  of  the  approval  or  denial. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  At  that  point  when  the  applicant  receives  a  letter 
in  the  mail  saying,  "Your  application  for  legalization  has  been  re- 
jected," is  that  person  then  going  to  be  targeted  somehow  for  de- 
portation, or  do  you  turn  to  the  next  application  and  try  to  work 
through  the  crush,  and  figure  he  might  get  the  word  from  that  to 
go  back  home? 

Mr.  Riso.  It  is  planned  to  refer  it  to  the  district  office. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Even  though  you  may  feel  this  is  not  a  very  strong 
case,  it  may  be  strong  enough  to  get  by  the  first  hurdle,  which  is 
the  initial  discussion.  But  maybe  it  doesn't  have  the  same  kind  of 
data  supporting  him  as  some  of  the  other  ones.  That  person  isn't  in 
jeopardy  until  after  there's  a  final  decision  made;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Riso.  That's  right. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  So  if  he  senses  that  things  aren't  going  well,  he 
might  get  the  word  just  from  that  sense  of  things  and  might  be 
able  to  beat  a  retreat  before  the  final  word  comes  out. 

Mr.  Riso.  There  is  considerable  what  I  would  call  skimming  in 
this  process.  It  would  be  our  expectation  that  good  applications  are 
encouraged  to  be  submitted  to  us  in  the  first  instance. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  OK. 

Mr.  Riso.  At  that  point  we  have  the  initial  onsite  review. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  ones  that  are  turned  down — at  the  first  little 
block  at  the  slide,  after  they  go  to  the  voluntary  agencies,  and  the 
voluntary  agency  suggests  they  are  in  pretty  good  shape  and  they 
give  them  to  the  INS  but  the  INS  rejects  them  at  that  point— that 
person  is  at  that  point  subject  to  being  put  in  the  pot  for  the 
normal  kind  of  law  enforcement;  is  that  right? 

Mr.  Riso.  That  is  our  plan.  One  addition  on  that  is  we  have  not 
required,  and  do  not  plan  at  this  time  to  require,  the  voluntaries  to 
report  any  contact  with  someone  they  suggest  goes  away. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  That's  what  I  was  going  to  ask. 

Mr.  Riso.  We  have  not  required  that.  We  have  not  asked  for  any 
information  on  anyone  they  counsel  with  and  then  persuade  not  to 
apply. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Only  the  ones  the  voluntary  agencies  decide  to 
send  on  to  you  get  into  this  chain.  Otherwise  you  don't  even  know 
they  exist. 

Mr.  Riso.  You  get  into  our  system  the  moment  you  hand  us  an 
application  and  that's  up  to  you. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  My  understanding  is  that  INS  will  not  interview 
all  of  the  candidates  even  for  permanent  residence.  You  will  just 
look  at  the  application  and  do  a  sample  interview  yourself.  You 
would  depend  on  the  VOLAGS  to  do  a  substantial  portion  of  the 
interviewing;  is  that  correct? 

Mr.  Riso.  No;  that  is  not  now  correct.  The  voluntaries  have  ex- 
pressed some  concern  about  abdicating  an  advocacy  role  if  they 
were  to  engage  in  the  process  once  the  application  was  received.  So 
what  we  have  done  is  really  pulled  back  a  bit  and  said  the  receipt 
of  the  application  and  the  interviews  and  the  decisions  as  to  wheth- 


268 

er  the  person  qualifies  or  not  will  be  done  within  and  by  INS 
people. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  All  the  way. 

Mr.  Riso.  That's  right. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  After  that  point  is  passed. 

Mr.  Riso.  Yes. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  So  you're  going  to  screen  everybody  yourselves. 

Mr.  Riso.  We  will  screen.  That's  one  of  the  ways  in  which  we 
hope  to  disengage  what  was  becoming  a  contentious  feature  about 
on-site  presence  and  such. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  Thank  you. 

Commissioner  Nelson.  I  might  add  a  comment  that  might  be  ap- 
propriate. As  Jerry  said,  the  way  we  are  visiting  this  now  would 
take  away  some  of  the  conflict  problem  with  the  VOLAGS.  But 
that  must  be  addressed,  whether  by  regulation  or  otherwise,  or  op- 
erating procedures  or  contracts,  that  the  voluntary  agencies  or  any 
other  group  that  is  involved  in  the  processing,  and  so  forth,  must 
separate  clearly  any  processing  role  from  any  advocacy  role.  If  they 
are  going  to  get  into  advocacy,  then  they  can't  be  into  processing. 
Or  if  they  want  to  separate  the  Sierra  Club  into  different  units,  or 
one  organization  would  do  the  one  and  the  other  the  other,  that 
can  be  addresed.  But  that  is  an  important  area  we  must  deal  with. 

Mr.  Riso.  The  way  we  plan  to  organize  this — and  this  touches  on 
some  of  the  questions  raised  already — we  look  upon  legalization  as 
a  project  separate  from  the  normal  operating  structure.  We  recog- 
nize that  what  we  put  into  place  now  will  change  but  that  we 
ought  to  have  a  structure  in  place  on  day  one. 

We  initially  will  begin  operations  in  Washington.  This  will  be  a 
full-time  assignment  for  those  people  who  are  assigned,  and  we'll 
put  them  all  in  the  same  place. 

And  we  will  then  get  into  a  field  organization  as  the  program 
starts.  We  have  not  targeted  but  we  have  tried  to  identify  those  8 
to  10  or  12  areas  where  we  are  likely  to  have  the  greatest  concen- 
tration. 

That  is  the  initial  day  one  organization  leading  to  a  potential  or- 
ganization where  we  continue  to  have  the  project  management, 
field  management,  with  the  employment  of  area  managers  onsite 
and  major  concentrations  to  provide  liaison  between  those  organi- 
zations we  sign  contracts  with  or  district  officers  in  Washington. 

We  may  get  to  that.  And  in  the  area  managers,  we  may  have  12 
or  15. 

Now,  to  do  this  job — and  it  is  complex  but  it  is  possible — we  have 
outlined  what  must  we  accomplish  by  when. 

Within  the  first  6  weeks  we  have  the  following  items  that  we 
have  to  undertake,  and  basically  I  break  them  down  into  three 
parts: 

Clearly  a  massive  public  information  program.  And  we  have  to 
design  it  to  reach  a  variety  of  the  population. 

We  are  ready  to  sign  contracts  with  ad  agencies  if  that  will  help 
get  our  message  across. 

Second,  we  have  to  get  the  central  processing  facility  up,  and 
that  has  to  be  operative  within  about  90  days  after  passage  of  legis- 
lation, a  difficult  administrative  problem. 


269 

Third,  the  negotiations,  and  hopefully  successful  negotiations, 
with  the  voluntaries  or  communication  organizations  in  the  begin- 
ning of  their  training.  And  the  regulations  and  all  the  forms  have 
to  be  ready  by  then. 

We  have  anticipated  most  of  these  needs  and  could  gear  up  right 
away. 

In  the  second  90  days  to  120  days,  at  the  sixth  week  we  would 
hope  to  begin  opening  up  the  screening  centers,  run  the  public 
service  ads  at  day  45  to  day  60,  and  gradually  expand  the  operation 
of  the  intake  and  counseling  and  add  our  staff  where  needed. 

I  identify  again  day  90  as  the  day  the  central  processing  facility 
should  begin  operations. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Mr.  Riso,  may  I  ask  you  a  question.  Do  you  antici- 
pate reimbursement  formulas  with  these  voluntary  agencies  or 
civic  groups  or  church  groups,  or  is  it  so  much  per  person  whom 
they  process? 

Mr.  Riso.  Our  current  planning  is  based  on  so  much  per  person, 
so  much  per  application  submitted. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  In  other  words,  if  20  people  came  into  the  office 
and  the  voluntary  agency  said,  "Really  only  one  of  you  qualifies  to 
have  further  work  done,"  they'd  be  paid  for  one  person? 

Mr.  Riso.  That  is  our  planning,  and  that's  going  to  be  negotiable. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  see. 

Mr.  Riso.  We  have  identified  an  appeal  process.  I  simply  identify 
our  recognition  that  the  appeal  process  must  be  independent  of  the 
initial  decisionmaking  process  to  keep  clear  of  our  professional  con- 
flict of  interest.  Again,  denied  appeals  are  sent  to  the  alien  and  the 
case  referred  to  the  INS  district  office.  We  will  engage  a  normal 
enforcement  process  on  anyone  turned  down. 

During  legalization,  again  no  risk  appearance  for  the  applicant. 
Clearly  a  priority  is  fraudulent  and  serious  offender  cases  referred 
back  to  the  district  office,  and  the  field  offices  continuing  normal 
operations. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Let  me  ask  you  a  question.  If  a  person  were  to 
present  himself  at  a  voluntary  agency  and  he  fits  in  by  whatever 
cutoff  date  and  he  has  good  proof  of  that— checks,  rent  receipts,  let- 
ters—but on  the  other  hand,  he  has  also  used  false  and  fraudulent 
documents  in  order  to  handle  being  in  this  country  illegally,  what 
do  you  do? 

Is  possession  of  those  and  past  use  of  this  kind  of  docurnentation, 
stemming  from  his  illegal  presence  in  the  country— again  he  has 
not  hurt  someone,  no  crimes  of  violence,  no  other  activities,  except 
those  directly  related  to  his  desire  to  stay  here — are  those  going  to 
be  enough  to  reject  his  eventual  application  for  legalization? 

Mr.  Riso.  Let  me  refer  that  to  Joe  in  terms  of  the  enforcement 
issue,  in  terms  of  what  priority  we  give  that. 

Mr.  Salgado.  I  think  equity  would  probably  maintain  or  dictate 
that  probably  at  that  particular  time  that  would  not  foreclose  his 
application.  If  in  fact  there  had  been  some  other  offenses  attached 
to  it,  criminal  activity,  naturally  that  would  be  a  fact  to  be  weighed 
in.  I  don't  think  we  would  make  a  blanket  statement  at  this  time, 
but  I  do  think  the  equity  would  attach. 

Mr.  Mazzou.  I  thank  you.  I  think  you  certainly  wouldn't  want 
the  exclusion  process  to  be  a  gimmick.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the 


270 

activities  are  just  using  false  documentation,  which  hasn't  de- 
frauded anyone,  but  has  just  simply  been  used  in  order  to  give  him 
a  cover  to  stay  in  this  country,  that  person  ought  to  be  looked  at 
very  sympathetically. 

Mr.  Riso.  That  is  basically  the  status  of  our  plans  today. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Let  me  commend  you,  because  I  know  you  have 
been  working,  as  we  have,  by  the  seat  of  your  pants,  never  knowing 
from  day  to  day  what  bill  would  emerge  and  what  details  would  be 
entered.  But  I  think  you  have  done  a  very  excellent  job  of  trying  to 
handle  the  program  and  the  process  of  dealing  with  the  bill. 

Skip  has  a  question. 

Mr.  Endres.  Just  a  technical  question  that  relates  to  both  protec- 
tion from  deportation  and  work  authority  while  the  application  for 
legalization  is  pending.  At  what  point  in  that  process  would,  in 
fact,  the  alien  who  has  filed  an  application  be  protected  from  de- 
portation, and  would  he  be  authorized  to  work  and  would  both  of 
these  facts  be  communicated  to  him  in  some  form? 

Mr.  Riso.  It  was  our  intent  that  upon  receipt  of  the  application 
they  in  turn  would  get  a  receipt,  and  that  would  serve  them  while 
the  application  is  being  reviewed  and  doing  the  file  checks. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  During  that  period  of  time,  they  could  work,  they 
could  come  and  go,  they  would  have  no  fear  of  being  deported. 
They  may  ultimately  not  survive  the  analysis  of  the  test,  which  is 
a  different  story,  but  during  that  period  of  time  they  are  protected. 

Mr.  Riso.  That  was  our  plan. 

Commissioner  Nelson.  Let  me  just  add  onto  that,  Mr.  Chairman. 
Presumably,  a  very,  very  high  percentage  of  these  people  will  be 
working  when  they  apply.  Obviously  they  have  to  qualify  to  avoid 
the  public  charge  test.  In  fact,  I  think  the  committee  ought  to  look 
very  hard  to  some  language  in  the  bill  that  would  require  some 
kind  of  corroborating  evidence  from  the  employer,  in  addition  to 
the  application,  from  the  applicant,  showing  the  employment  his- 
tory. Because  that's  going  to  be  key  both  to  minimize  the  fraud 
problems,  to  establish  a  good  record,  and  of  course  to  assure  his 
valid  employment. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  I  have  some  questions  but  not  about  this  proce- 
dure. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Go  ahead. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  There  are  three  areas  that  I  will  cover  very 
quickly  that  I  wanted  to  ask  about,  to  Mr.  Nelson  particularly,  but 
anyone  else  can  certainly  comment  on  them. 

My  understanding  is  that  back  in  1980  President  Carter  issued  a 
proclamation  that  all  aliens  would  be  required  to  register  for  the 
draft.  To  what  extent  is  the  service  implementing  that  today? 

Commissioner  Nelson.  Someone  else  might  be  able  to  elaborate 
on  it.  I,  of  course,  wanted  to  answer  it  from  the  other  thing.  I  met 
the  gentleman,  Mr.  Foley,  from  Selective  Service  out  in  the  hall 
earlier.  Of  course,  under  the  Efficiency  Act  that  was  passed  last 
year  that  you  all  had  so  much  to  do  with,  it  took  away  this  require- 
ment for  alien  registration,  which  was  going  to  be  very  burdensome 
and  unnecessary.  So  we  think  that's  important. 

Now,  where  that  conflicts  with  the  Selective  Service  registration 
issue,  I  don't  really  know. 


271 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  Would  there  be  any  problem  if  we  put  a  require- 
ment in,  that  you  had  to  have  a  card  there,  and  they  had  to  regis- 
ter when  they  came  up  to  be  legalized? 

Commissioner  Nelson.  My  offhand  reaction  would  be  there 
would  be  no  problem  with  that. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  I  have  another  area  I'd  like  to  ask  you  about.  It 
has  to  do  with  your  comments  of  concern,  which  I  also  share  but 
have  a  peculiar  problem  with  from  Florida,  on  the  Federal  reim- 
bursement moneys  with  regard  to  questions  of  those  who  are  legal- 
ized. 

There  seems  to  be  a  wide  division  here.  There  is  the  block  grant 
concept  the  administration  wants,  and  there  is  what  I  have  been 
promoting  and  certainly  took  a  part  in,  which  was  to  comply  with 
my  State's  wishes  and  concerns  over  the  expenses,  which  is  a  full 
reimbursement. 

Someone  has  suggested  to  me — and  it  didn't  come  from  those 
folks  at  Tallahassee,  I  can  assure  you — there  might  be  grounds  for 
compromise  in  between  somewhere  in  the  use  of  a  matching  funds 
type  of  concept,  where  dollar  for  dollar  the  State  puts  up  50  per- 
cent and  the  Federal  Government  puts  up  50  percent,  rather  than 
a  block  grant. 

Has  that  been  considered  in  your  shop? 

Commissioner  Nelson.  Not  specifically,  Mr.  McCollum,  but  I 
think  the  point  is  well  worth  pursuing.  I  just  might  add  on  the 
question  of  the  funding,  I  think  Senator  Dirksen  said,  "A  billion 
dollars  here,  a  billion  dollars  there,  and  pretty  soon  it  mounts  up 
to  real  money." 

It  really  is  a  monetary  issue  as  to  who  ought  to  pay  and  what  the 
formula  ought  to  be. 

I  think  as  the  Attorney  General  testified  yesterday,  of  course,  it 
really  has  to  be  a  shared  operation,  and  where  the  shares  are,  I 
think,  is  subject  to  analysis  and  negotiation. 

I  personally  met  with  several  governors,  including  Governor 
Graham  of  Florida.  We  are  talking  to  counties  and  other  people.  I 
think  we  need  to  continue  the  dialog.  One  thing  I  would  hate  to  see 
happen  is  that  county  and  state  governments  take  a  position, 
"Well,  we  are  not  going  to  get  all  that  reimbursement.  We  are 
going  to  fight  the  bill."  Because  it's  like  any  other  thing.  You've 
got  to  look  at  the  big  picture,  and  the  big  picture  is  if  we  don't  get 
the  reform,  everybody  is  going  to  lose  a  lot  bigger  than  if  we  do 
have  it. 

So  I  think  it's  important  we  work  together,  and  I  would  pick  up 
on  your  suggestion  that  we  explore  with  the  Governors,  with  the 
local  officials,  various  kinds  of  considerations. 

Mr.  McCollum.  I  would  appreciate  it  if  you  would.  I  suspect  that 
on  our  side  we  will  be  able  to  maintain — I  don't  know  the  chair- 
man's feelngs  personally;  I  think  I  do  from  history.  But  I  think 
there's  a  good  possibility  we  will  maintain  full  reimbursement 
through  certain  stages  of  this  bill,  but  I  can  see  there  may  be  a 
need  for  compromise  at  some  point. 

I  have  had  no  one  else  raise  that  with  me  officially  from  the  Gov- 
ernors, but  I  definitely  would  like  to  think  that  something  different 
from  a  block  grant  could  be  in  your  bag  of  suggestions  if  that  occa- 
sion arises. 


272 

The  last  question  area  I  have  has  to  do  with  following  up  on 
something  unrelated  to  this  hearing,  but  again  I  don't  think  I'll  be 
able  to  ask  you  next  week,  and  I  would  just  like  clarification  on  the 
policy  for  the  future,  whether  you  have  it  today  or  not. 

We  have  in  Florida  an  office  which  I  am  very  familiar  with, 
which  is  not  a  district  office,  but  the  one  in  Tampa.  I  can  remem- 
ber some  time  back  I  had  worked  with  them  in  trying  to  speed  up 
the  process  of  handling  routine  immigration  matters — not  any  of 
the  legal  problems.  Their  biggest  single  complaint  to  me — your  peo- 
ple's complaint  to  me — is  that  they  have  terrible  difficulty  getting 
files  and  getting  them  quickly  and  expeditiously  out  of  Miami.  I 
would  suspect  that  is  true  to  one  degree  or  another  all  over  the 
country  in  offices  outside  the  district,  the  suboffices,  like  the  office 
in  Tampa  is. 

My  understanding  at  one  point  an  effort  was  undergoing  when 
you  first  took  over  to  allow  them  to  be  a  file  office.  I  understand 
now  from  that  level  that  they  have  been  led  to  believe  that  that 
cannot  take  place  unless  they  become  a  district  office.  So  they  have 
been  lobbying  me  to  somehow  urge  you  to  make  them  a  district 
office. 

I  have  no  desire  to  create  bureaucracy  to  make  it  a  district  office, 
but  I  have  a  definite  desire  to  see  a  speedup  in  their  ability  to  re- 
spond to  the  burdens  on  them.  And  I'm  wondering  if  there  is  any 
way  you  are  either  now  considering  or  could  consider,  not  just  for 
Tampa  but  all  over  the  country,  allowing  the  more  removed  offices 
to  maintain  their  own  files  routinely. 

Have  you  given  any  consideration  to  that? 

Commissioner  Nelson.  We  have  given  a  great  deal  of  considera- 
tion to  all  aspects  of  files.  And  if  I  might  add  in  a  broader  tone,  I 
think  we  have  made  a  move  that  will  be  very  effective  down- 
stream, and  we  have  put  $10  million  in  the  fiscal  1984  budget  re- 
quest to  create  a  national  record  center,  the  idea  of  automating 
these  records,  and  getting  into  the  20th  century,  if  you  will,  to  be 
able  to  better  process  and  utilize  records.  But  it  is  absolutely  essen- 
tial with  the  number  of  records  we  have. 

So  that  is  underway.  Planning  and  implementation  steps  are  un- 
derway. The  money  is  in  the  budget. 

In  cases  where  they  have  remote  files  in  the  suboffices,  that  is  a 
difficult  one,  and  I  wouldn't  really  be  in  a  position  to  say  we'd  do  it 
or  not.  You  do  have  problems  of  lost  files.  You  do  have  problems 
with  keeping  proper  control.  We  need  to  continue  to  work  at  it.  I 
will  see  that  we  explore  this. 

Mr.  McCoLLUM.  I  would  appreciate  it  if  you  would.  I'm  looking  at 
1983,  1984,  1985.  And  although  I  realize  you  have  to  keep  track  of 
these  things,  it  seems  to  me  while  they  are  getting  automated  into 
your  system,  they  will  be  just  as  safe — and  they  aren't  very  much 
so  today — in  those  local  offices  as  they  would  be  in  the  big  district 
office.  And  it  would  certainly  help  my  staff,  it  would  help  the  staff 
of  all  my  colleagues,  and  a  great  many  individuals  who  just  are 
waiting  primarily  because  they  can't  get  the  blasted  file  out  of 
Miami  or  Los  Angeles  or  whatever. 

That's  my  one  oversight  question,  Mr.  Chairman. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you  very  much. 

I  just  have  a  couple  of  rapid  questions. 


273 

One  is,  can  you  have  whatever  figures  you  can  develop  to  us  by 
next  week  at  our  oversight  hearings,  on  the  question  of  how  much 
money  you  can  use  and  how  many  people  and  so  forth,  that  we 
talked  about  earlier  today? 

Commissioner  Nelson.  Well,  we  certainly  can  discuss  in  general 
terms,  and  I  think  we'd  probably  have  a  legal  question  as  well  as  a 
dollar  question  as  to  what  we  can  be  providing  since  it  has  not 
been  formally  processed  through  the  Department  and  OMB.  I 
would  be  pleased  to  share  whatever  we  can  share  with  you,  subject 
to  those  constraints. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you  very  much. 

Commissioner  Nelson.  We  all  do  agree  there  are  needed  re- 
sources there,  and  we  need  to  look  down  that  path. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  last  thing  for  me  today  is  what  I  brought  up 
yesterday.  You  might  have  been  in  the  room  when  I  talked  to  the 
Attorney  General  about  the  article  suggesting  somehow  local  police 
organizations  will  be  deputized  to  work  in  immigration.  And  the 
Attorney  General  assured  me  that  was  never  meant  to  be  the  case. 
He  likened  it  to  the  cooperative  effort  of  drugs.  But  if  you  were  lis- 
tening to  my  colleague,  Mr.  Lungren,  he  said  there  is  a  difference 
here  between  coordinating  activities  for  drug  busts  and  coordinat- 
ing activities  in  this  area,  for  a  lot  of  reasons,  not  the  least  of 
which  is  the  symbolic  part. 

I  do  not  want  to  ask  you  to  make  any  final  statements  today,  as 
we  will  probably  be  asking  these  questions  next  week. 

It  is  certainly  clear  from  what  I  glean  from  all  this  that  we  do 
not  want  local  police  to  be  doing  the  work  of  the  Immigration  Serv- 
ice. We  want  you  to  do  the  work.  And  if  it  means  we  have  to  get 
more  money  and  more  people  and  more  equipment  and  whatever 
else,  that's  what  we  are  disposed  to  do. 

Accordingly,  we  would  hope  this  explanation  by  the  Attorney 
General  yesterday  is  exactly  right:  that  there  is  only  to  be  the 
normal  cooperative  effort.  The  local  police  are  not  to  be  charged 
with  the  responsibility  of  going  into  that  bar  and  tavern  and  find 
out  who  is  there  legally  and  who  is  not.  We  do  not  want  that. 

I  think  our  best  interests — yours  and  mine  and  everybody's — are 
not  served  by  that  kind  of  activity. 

Commissioner  Nelson.  Your  comments,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  fully 
adopt,  as  well  as  those  of  the  Attorney  General.  I  have  no  intention 
to  do  any  of  those  things  that  you  indicated.  It  was  a  clarification 
of  what  had  been  perceived  earlier  to  be  a  hands-off  working  rela- 
tionship policy,  and  we  wanted  to  correct  that. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  do  not  understand  law  enforcement  much.  I  can 
understand  if  a  policeman  is  called  into  a  bar  because  there  is  a 
fight,  and  he  breaks  the  fight  up.  Then  in  the  normal  process  of 
booking  people  he  finds  somebody  is  not  there  legally.  He  should 
not  overlook  that.  He  turns  that  in.  But  you  do  not  go  into  the  bar 
and  start  checking  papers,  and  then  go  outside  and  tell  the  INS 
guys,  "Come  on  in.  I've  got  these  two  people  here."  That  is  what  we 
do  not  want. 

Commissioner  Nelson.  Right. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Gentlemen,  and  everybody  in  the  room,  you  have 
had  remarkable  patience.  We  have  had  a  long  day. 

Thank  you  very  much.  We  stand  adjourned. 

[Whereupon,  at  2:05  p.m.,  the  hearing  was  adjourned.] 


IMMIGRATION  REFORM  AND  CONTROL  ACT  OF 

1983 


WEDNESDAY,  MARCH  9,  1983 

House  of  Representatives, 
Subcommittee  on  Immigration, 
Refugees,  and  International  Law, 

Committee  on  the  Judiciary, 

Washington,  D.C. 

The  subcommittee  met,  pursuant  to  call,  at  9  a.m.  in  room  2226, 
Rayburn  House  Office  Building,  Hon.  Romano  L.  Mazzoli  (chair- 
man of  the  subcommittee)  presiding. 

Present:  Representatives  Mazzoli,  Lungren,  Fish,  and  McCollum. 

Staff  present:  Arthur  P.  Endres,  counsel;  Eugene  Pugliese,  assist- 
ant counsel;  Peter  Regis  and  Harris  N.  Miller,  legislative  assis- 
tants; and  Peter  J.  Levinson,  associate  counsel. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  hearing  will  come  to  order. 

Prior  to  commencing  today's  hearing,  I  would  like  to  insert  into 
the  record  the  testimony  of  the  Honorable  Peter  W.  Rodino,  Jr., 
chairman  of  the  committee.  As  we  all  know.  Chairman  Rodino  has 
been  in  the  forefront  of  immigration  reform  since  his  association 
with  this  subcommittee  in  1971.  I  welcome  this  opportunity  to 
present  his  views. 

[The  statement  follows:] 

Testimony  of  Hon.  Peter  W.  Rodino,  Jr. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Members  of  the  Subcommittee:  I  am  pleased  to  be  here  today 
to  express  my  support  for  H.R.  1510,  the  Immigration  Reform  and  Control  Act  of 
1983,  and  to  make  some  observations  concerning  specific  provisions  of  the  legisla- 
tion. I  believe  that  similar  legislation  would  have  been  enacted  as  the  Immigration 
Reform  and  Control  Act  of  1982  had  not  the  clock  been  running  against  us  in  the 
waning  days  of  the  97th  Congress.  I  want  to  commend  the  Chairman  of  the  Subcom- 
mittee for  moving  quickly  this  Congress,  and  for  scheduling  a  full  set  of  hearings  on 
this  important  legislation. 

I  do  not  need  to  tell  the  Members  of  this  Subcommittee  that  this  is  controversial 
legislation.  It  is  essential  that  it  receive  a  full  hearing,  and  that  we  then  act  as  ex- 
peditiously as  possible  in  this  session. 

Twelve  years  ago,  on  May  5,  1971,  this  Subcommittee  under  my  Chairmanship 
began  a  series  of  hearings  into  the  problem  of  illegal  aliens.  Altogether,  we  held  16 
days  of  hearings  across  the  country  (J^s  Angeles,  Denver,  El  Paso,  New  York,  Chi- 
cago, and  Detroit)  with  final  days  of  hearings  in  Washington.  Based  on  these  hear- 
ings, we  drafted  employer  sanctions  legislation  which  passed  the  House  by  wide 
margins  in  1972  and  again  in  1973,  but  was  not  enacted  due  to  Senate  inaction. 

We  estimated  at  that  time  that  illegal  aliens  numbered  between  one  and  two  mil- 
lion, that  the  number  entering  had  been  increasing  since  1965,  and  that  the  number 
apprehended  annually  was  greater  than  the  number  of  aliens  admitted  as  lawful 
permanent  residents.  Now,  12  years  later,  the  number  of  undocumented  aliens  has 
increased  and  apprehensions  far  exceed  the  number  of  aliens  entering  legally.  The 

(275) 


276 

resident  undocumented  alien  population  was  estimated  at  between  3.5  million  and  6 

million  in  1978.  ,    ,  ,  , 

We  concluded  in  the  early  1970's  that  the  economic  imbalance  between  the 
United  States  and  the  countries  from  which  illegal  aliens  come,  coupled  with  the 
easy  availability  of  employment  here,  accounted  in  large  part  for  the  undocumented 
alien  phenomenon,  along  with  the  shortage  of  INS  personnel.  This  remains  true 

today. 

We  can  do  little  in  the  Judiciary  Committee  about  the  economic  imbalance  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  the  developing  countries.  Yet,  this  problem  cannot  be 
ignored  by  the  Congress  and  the  Executive  Branch  and  long-term  solutions  to  this 
difficult  problem  must  be  actively  explored. 

We  also  found  in  the  early  1970's  that  the  undocumented  alien  problem  was  no 
longer  limited  to  the  Southwest,  but  that  it  extended  to  most  of  our  major  metro- 
politan areas.  Similarly,  it  was  no  longer  limited  to  agriculture;  considerable  num- 
bers of  such  aliens  were  found  in  industry.  We  also  found  that  the  so  called  "illegal 
aliens"  displaced  American  workers,  particularly  in  the  lower-wage  occupations. 
These  findings  are  even  more  valid  today  than  they  were  previously. 

In  fact,  my  good  friend,  Althea  Simnions,  Director  of  the  Washington  Bureau  of 
NAACP,  recently  testified  that,  "the  continued  influx  of  undocumented  workers  has 
a  disparate  impact  on  blacks,  many  of  whom,  are  marginally  employed  or  unem- 
ployed. Many  blacks  are  forced  from  employment  rolls  by  the  undocumented  worker 
who  is  usually  hired  at  a  subminimum  wage  and  without  the  protection  of  organized 
labor".  This  is  indeed  very  troubling  and  with  black  youth  unemployment  at  almost 
50  percent,  we  must  move  quickly  to  eliminate  this  unfair  job  competition. 

The  undocumented  alien  problem  has  deepened  and  intensified,  both  geographi- 
cally and  occupationally.  We  found  that,  apart  from  their  violation  of  the  immigra- 
tion law,  undocumented  aliens  were  not  generally  involved  in  criminal  or  drug-re- 
lated behavior.  We  also  found  that,  by  virtue  of  their  illegal  status,  such  aliens  were 
subject  to  exploitation  in  the  form,  for  instance,  of  substandard  wages  and  working 
conditions,  and  denial  of  fringe  benefits  and  vacations. 

My  purpose  in  cataloguing  these  findings  of  more  than  ten  years  ago  is  to  under- 
score how  little  things  have  changed.  The  major  change  we  see  is  in  the  numbers, 
which  have  increased  and  will  continue  to  do  so  unless  we  act.  Immigration  to  this 
country  is  increasingly  coming  to  mean  illegal  immigration.  According  to  INS,  5.4 
million  (5,381,107)  legal  aliens  registered  with  the  alien  address  report  program  in 
January  1980,  and  of  that  number  4.5  million  (4,532,647)  are  permanent  resident 
aliens,  or  immigrants.  In  all  probability,  they  are  outnumbered  by  the  resident  un- 
documented alien  population.  This  is  a  sad  commentary  on  U.S.  immigration  policy. 
There  is  considerable  concern  in  discussions  of  illegal  immigration  about  the  need 
to  control  our  borders,  a  concern  that  I  myself  share,  but  there  is  another  cause  for 
concern.  We  are  proud  of  our  long  tradition  as  a  nation  of  immigrants,  a  land  of 
opportunity  for  the  ambitious  and  asylum  for  the  oppressed.  This  is  all  part  of  the 
American  dream.  Illegal  immigration  represents  the  underside  of  the  American 
dream— the  opportunity  to  come  here  and  work  and  better  oneself,  but  without  the 
protection  of  the  law,  without  the  guarantee  of  justice,  and  without  the  promise  of 
freedom.  Unlike  lawful  immigration,  which  is  beneficial  to  our  society,  illegal  immi- 
gration is  harmful  to  our  society  and  the  institutions  on  which  it  is  based.  We  are 
permitting  the  development  and  perpetuation  of  an  underclass  of  people  who  live 
here  but  are  fearful  of  law  enforcement  authorities,  do  not  seek  necessary  medical 
care,  and  are  subject  to  every  kind  of  exploitation  in  the  work  place. 

With  this  as  background,  I  want  to  express  my  support  for  the  legislation  before 
this  Subcommittee,  H.R.  1510.  The  bill  is  substantively  identical  to  the  legislation 
reported  out  of  the  House  Judiciary  Committee  last  Congress.  As  such,  it  leaves  the 
preference  system  in  the  existing  law  unchanged.  In  my  opinion,  this  is  one  of  the 
primary  reasons  it  is  a  good  bill.  As  I  said  when  I  offered  the  amendment  striking 
the  proposed  changes  in  the  preference  system  during  full  Committee  mark-up  in 
the  last  Congress,  we  need  to  know  the  impact  and  consequences  of  legalization 
before  we  embark  on  any  major  adjustment  of  the  preference  system.  We  must  not 
put  "the  cart  before  the  horse"  and  while  I  agree  that  legal  immigration  issues 
should  be  considered,  there  will  be  sufficient  time  to  do  so  once  the  legalization  pro- 
gram has  been  completed. 

At  that  point,  when  we  have  some  idea  of  what  we're  talking  about  in  terms  of 
numbers,  countries  of  origin,  and  potential  relatives,  it  may  be  appropriate  to  un- 
dertake a  study  of  the  existing  numerical  limits  and  preference  system  with  the 
thought,  perhaps,  of  adopting  a  more  flexible  system  which  could  be  adjusted  in  re- 
sponse to  both  domestic  and  foreign  needs.  I  was  intrigued  by  a  discussion  of  this 


277 

issue  in  a  recent  United  Nations  report  surveying  international  migration  policies 
and  programs.  Let  me  quote  briefly  from  the  report: 

"The  United  States  is  somewhat  different  from  the  other  immigration  countries, 
in  that  no  other  nation  appears  to  have  adopted  numerical  limits  as  a  migration 
control  mechanism,  something  that  has  been  a  feature  of  United  States  immigration 
policy  since  1921.  The  United  States  system  relies  on  the  utilization  of  numerical 
limits— a  worldwide  ceiling  of  270,000  (excluding  refugees),  and  a  per  country  limit 
of  20,000— that  are  largely  based  on  precedent  rather  than  on  any  recent  assess- 
ment of  national  needs.  The  overall  ceiling— which,  as  previously  noted,  does  not 
apply  to  refugees— remains  fixed,  regardless  of  changing  international  circum- 
stances. (United  Nations,  International  Migration  Policies  and  Programmes:  A 
World  Survey,  1982,  p.  5.)" 

We  may  at  some  point  wish  to  undertake  a  revision  of  the  law  which  makes  our 
immigrant  admission  policy  more  responsive  to  national  needs  and  international  cir- 
cumstances. One  possible  way  of  doing  this  was  explored  by  the  Select  Commission 
on  Immigration  and  Refugee  Policy.  For  example,  the  Commission  considered  the 
creation  of  a  council  of  experts  with  ongoing  responsibility  for  studying  domestic 
and  international  conditions  and  for  making  periodic  recommendations  regarding 
the  adjustment  of  immigrations  levels  and  the  revision  of  immigration  policy. 

This  concept,  despite  the  strong  support  of  several  Members  of  the  Commission, 
including  Father  Hesburgh  and  me,  was  not  ultimately  adopted.  I  would  recommend 
that  the  Subcommittee  seriously  consider  the  need  for  flexible  immigration  ceilings. 

Further,  I  reiterate  my  strong  view  that  the  existing  preference  system  not  be 
tampered  with  at  this  time.  It  is  working  reasonably  well  according  to  those  who 
administer  the  program — The  Departments  of  State  and  Justice — and  its  modifica- 
tion is  in  no  way  integral  to  the  purpose  of  this  bill,  which  is  the  control  of  illegal 
immigration. 

Ambassador  Asencio,  the  Assistant  Secretary  of  State  for  Consular  Affairs,  has 
often  remarked  "if  it  ain't  broke,  don't  fix  it."  I  would  add  that  this  matter  is  as 
"politically-charged"  as  the  issue  of  employer  sanctions.  Undoubtedly,  changes  to 
the  preference  system  could  generate  substantial  opposition  from  the  Asian,  His- 
panic, Italian,  Jewish  and  Catholic  communities.  I  do  not  believe  this  legislation 
should  contain  additional  controversial  and  emotional  issues  and  for  this  reason,  I 
urge  the  Subcommittee  to  avoid  any  modification  to  our  system  of  legal  immigra- 
tion. 

The  centerpiece,  the  heart,  the  linchpin  of  H.R.  1510,  is  the  employer  sanctions 
provisions.  Quite  simply,  the  bill  would  make  it  unlawful  to  hire,  recruit,  or  refer  to 
employers  for  a  fee  aliens  who  are  unauthorized  to  accept  employment  in  the 
United  States.  The  bill  provides  for  a  graduated  series  of  penalties  intended  to  guar- 
antee that  employers  acting  in  good  faith  will  not  be  penalized.  It  also  includes 
crafted  verification  requirements  which  have  the  dual  purpose  of  providing  an  af- 
firmative defense  for  employers  and  of  protecting  those  who  look  foreign  from  possi- 
ble discrimination.  I  am  well  aware  of  the  concern  that  employer  sanctions  will 
result  in  discrimination,  particularly  against  Hispanics,  but  I  believe  that  those  who 
read  the  bill  carefully  will  clearly  recogriize  that  the  Judiciary  Committee  made 
every  effort  to  respond  to  these  serious  civil  rights  concerns.  For  example,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  verification  requirements,  which  pertain  to  all  new  hires,  amendments 
were  adopted  during  full  Committee  consideration  requiring  the  President,  the  Civil 
Rights  Commission,  and  an  Executive  Branch  Task  Force  to  monitor  any  discrimi- 
nation problems  that  result  from  employer  sanctions. 

It  is  clear  that  employer  sanctions  are  neither  the  answer  to  unemployment  nor 
the  civil  rights  nightmare  supporters  and  opponents  sometimes  portray  them  as 
being.  They  are,  however,  the  necessary  solution  to  a  serious  immigration  problem 
which  has  been  allowed  to  fester  far  too  long. 

In  large  part  because  of  the  years  of  neglect,  it  is  absolutely  essential  that  employ- 
er sanctions  be  accompanied  by  a  generous  and  straightforward  legalization  pro- 
gram. I  myself  would  also  prefer  that  it  be  as  simple  a  program  as  possible.  I  would 
prefer  a  one-date,  one-tier  program  to  the  overly  elaborate  legalization  provisions  in 
H.R.  1510.  The  primary  objective  of  the  program  should  be  to  bring  this  "shadow 
population"  into  the  open  and  the  more  understandable  the  program  is  the  more 
participation  we  can  expect.  In  my  opinion,  the  use  of  a  single  eligibility  date  would 
also  make  the  program  more  effective  and  easier  to  administer — not  an  insignificant 
concern  when  considering  the  monumental  manpower  problems  confronting  INS.  I 
would  also  recommend  that  the  Subcommittee  carefully  review  the  provisions  of 
H.R.  1510,  which  exclude  legalized  aliens  from  various  public  assistance  progranis. 
Alternative  approaches,  such  as  tightening  the  "public  charge"  provisions  or  requir- 


278 

ing  a  demonstration  of  employability  or  a  record  of  consistent  employment  should 
be  explored  in  greater  detail. 

Whatever  is  decided  on  that,  I  cannot  overemphasize  the  importance  I  attach  to  a 
meaningful  legalization  program.  I  have  said  before,  and  I  repeat,  without  legaliza- 
tion I  would  not  support  this  measure.  There  are  two  alternatives  to  legalization: 
accepting  the  status  quo  of  a  massive  underclass  of  undocumented  workers,  or  mas- 
sive roundups  and  deportations.  We  do  no  one  a  favor  by  accepting  the  status  quo, 
which  is  as  harmful  to  our  society  as  it  is  to  the  aliens  in  undocumented  status.  And 
surely  we  have  learned  our  lesson  from  the  1950s  regarding  massive  roundups  and 
deportations.  Operation  Wetback  is  not  something  we  would  wish  to  repeat  today. 

Legalization  is  the  only  acceptable  option,  and  it  is  an  appropriate  one,  one  with 
which  I  am  personally  comfortable.  I  am  convinced  that,  given  employer  sanctions 
and  increased  INS  enforcement — and  that  is  essential — we  will  not  have  a  recur- 
rence of  this  problem  again.  I  am  convinced,  in  short,  that  a  legalization  program 
would  be  a  one-shot  occurrence  aimed  at  a  specific  problem  which  we  would  be  re- 
medying. 

Finally,  I  want  to  comment  briefly  on  the  adjudication  and  asylum  provisions  in 
H.R.  1510.  I  believe  that  the  provisions  in  this  bill  have  struck  a  delicate  balance 
between  advocates  in  favor  of  streamlining  the  adjudication  process  and  those  in 
favor  of  providing  a  full  measure  of  due  process.  The  provisions,  in  my  judgment, 
are  objective,  fair,  humanitarian,  and  above  all,  recognize  our  responsibilities  under 
our  international  agreements  relating  to  refugees. 

Thank  you  for  this  opporunity  to  testify.  Again,  I  commend  you  for  your  early 
and  comprehensive  action  on  this  vitally  important  legislation.  I  look  forward  to  its 
early  passage. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Good  morning,  Mr.  Sensenbrenner,  as  our  first  wit- 
ness, welcome.  We  will  hear  from  you  now. 

TESTIMONY  OF  HON.  F.  JAMES  SENSENBRENNER,  JR.,  A  MEMBER 
IN  CONGRESS  FROM  THE  STATE  OF  WISCONSIN 

Mr.  Sensenbrenner.  Thank  you  very  much,  Mr.  Chairman.  I 
will  summarize  my  testimony  in  the  interest  of  saving  time,  and 
because  I  have  two  other  subcommittees  at  9:30  this  morning. 

I  appreciate  your  invitation  to  speak  before  the  subcommittee 
this  morning.  I  would  also  like  to  commend  you  and  the  subcom- 
mittee for  some  very  hard  work  on  an  issue  of  great  importance  to 
the  American  people. 

While  we  do  have  some  differences  in  the  specifics  of  the  legisla- 
tion, the  subcommittee's  work,  I  think,  will  facilitate  bringing  this 
issue  to  the  floor  of  the  House  of  Representatives  relatively  soon. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Let  me  also  thank  the  gentleman.  Though  he  is  not 
a  member  of  the  subcommittee,  the  gentleman  and  I  have  traveled 
together  in  the  subject  area  and  the  gentleman  has  made  many 
contributions  during  the  course  of  the  debate,  just  from  the  general 
focusing  of  attention  of  the  Congress  on  this  issue  which,  as  the 
gentleman  has  said  many  times,  tends  to  get  pushed  over  to  the 
back.  So  his  attention  has  helped  us. 

Mr.  Sensenbrenner.  I  certainly  appreciate  the  Chairman's  com- 
ments, and  I  hope  that  by  the  time  we  finish  this  debate,  he  will 
not  believe  that  a  little  bit  of  knowledge  can  be  a  dangerous  thing. 

One  of  the  major  criticisms  the  American  public  has  had  with 
our  present  immigration  law  is  that  we  have  "different  strokes  for 
different  folks."  If  a  cap  on  legal  immigration  is  not  enacted,  then 
the  current  number  of  legal  immigrants  entering  our  country  will 
continue  to  mushroom. 

In  1977,  legal  immigration  was  399,000.  In  1980,  it  was  808,000. 
In  1981,  it  was  697,000.  While  the  present  administration  has  made 
a  determined  effort  to  reduce  these  numbers,  there  is  no  law  which 


279 

places  a  limit  on  the  number  of  legal  immigrants,  including  refu- 
gees, which  our  country  will  accept. 

The  increasing  number  of  legal  immigrants  have  entered  our 
country  at  a  time  when  there  have  not  been  enough  jobs  to  go 
around  for  our  own  citizens.  "Compassion  fatigue"  has  set  in. 

Americans  are  having  a  difficult  time  understanding  why  our 
Government  continues  to  allow  more  people  in  this  country  who 
compete  for  jobs  and  place  a  drain  on  the  treasuries  of  our  State, 
local,  and  Federal  Governments.  Public  opinion  polls  show  that  80 
percent  of  the  American  people  want  reductions  in  legal  admis- 
sions. 

The  lack  of  a  cap  on  legal  immigration  goes  hand-in-hand  with 
the  method  of  allocating  immigrants  other  than  refugees.  H.R. 
1510  retains  the  current  system  and  does  not  limit  the  fifth  prefer- 
ence. 

Currently,  there  is  a  fifth  preference  backlog  of  over  700,000, 
which  is  continually  growing.  Less  than  one-half  of  this  backlog  are 
the  actual  brothers  and  sisters  of  U.S.  citizens.  The  rest  are  spouses 
and  children  of  these  brothers  and  sisters. 

If  the  fifth  preference  is  not  modified,  then  closer  family  mem- 
bers will  continue  to  have  problems  being  united.  If  family  reunifi- 
cation is  to  be  a  preferred  public  policy,  it  should  be  for  the  closest 
relatives — not  a  loophole  to  bring  "every  relative"  into  the  country. 

Any  immigration  reform  legislation  must  include  strong  employ- 
er sanctions.  They  need  to  be  strong  to  turn  off  the  economic 
magnet  of  jobs. 

The  employer  sanctions  in  H.R.  1510,  which  is  basically  the  legis- 
lation which  was  reported  out  of  the  House  Judiciary  Committee  in 
the  97th  Congress,  were  considerably  weakened.  Thus,  without 
some  type  of  economic  deterrent,  illegal  aliens  will  continue  to  be  a 
problem. 

I  would  point  out  that  the  Washington  Post  last  year  reported 
that  in  one  documented  case,  one  U.S.  citizen  was  able  to  bring  69 
relatives,  including  in-laws,  into  the  country  on  fifth  preference 
status,  and  that  is  something  that  has  got  to  be  limited. 

I  also  have  serious  reservations  about  the  provision  in  H.R.  1510, 
which  grants  amnesty  or  legalizes  millions  of  illegal  aliens.  The 
costs  of  amnesty  are  unclear  because  it  is  impossible  to  know  how 
many  illegal  aliens  will  take  advantage  of  this  program. 

The  CBO  estimates  the  number  of  illegal  aliens  to  be  4  Va  million; 
Justice  Department  estimates  vary  from  8  to  10  to  12  million  il- 
legal aliens. 

Obviously,  the  cost  will  be  astronomical.  These  costs  will  have  to 
be  absorbed  by  the  Federal,  State,  and  local  Governments,  which 
are  already  subject  to  enormous  pressures  to  cut  their  budgets  and 
reduce  spending.  These  additional  costs  could  bankrupt  some  juris- 
dictions. 

It  has  been  said  the  costs  of  the  amnesty  program  are  overstated 
because  a  substantial  number  of  illegal  aliens  will  not  take  advan- 
tage of  amnesty.  If  this  is  the  case,  then  legalization  should  not  be 
enacted  because  it  will  be  ineffective  and  won't  solve  the  problem 
of  illegal  aliens. 

Today  I  am  addressing  some  of  the  problems  that  I  see.  Very 
briefly,  this  includes  problems  under  a  total  cap  for  immigration. 


280 

It  limits  fifth  preference  to  unmarried  brothers  and  sisters  of 
U.S.  citizens.  It  deals  with  the  illegal  alien  problem  by  moving  the 
registry  date  from  1948  to  1973  so  we  can  see  how  this  25-year  ad- 
vance in  the  registry  data  affects  our  illegal  alien  problem. 

Furthermore,  my  legislation  addresses  the  problem  of  employer 
sanctions  in  a  meaningful  way  by  establishing  a  fine  of  up  to 
$20,000  for  repeat  offenders. 

In  conclusion,  I  would  hope  that  the  United  States  could  contin- 
ue as  much  as  possible  its  open  door  policy  toward  the  displaced, 
the  persecuted,  and  the  ambitious  of  the  world.  However,  our  eco- 
nomic and  resource  situation  dictates  that  business  as  usual  cannot 
continue. 

Meaningful  immigration  reform  must  be  accomplished  and  I  am 
hopeful  that  this  Congress  will  accomplish  such  a  reform. 

[The  complete  statement  follows:] 

Prepared  Statement  of  F.  James  Sensenbrenner,  Jr. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  appreciate  the  opportunity  to  testify  before  the  House  Judiciary 
Subcommittee  on  Immigration,  Refugees,  and  International  Law  on  the  important 
issue  of  immigration  reform. 

Before  getting  into  specifics,  I  would  first  like  to  commend  the  Chairman  for  his 
diligent  and  sincere  efforts  on  this  issue.  It  is  my  sincere  hope  that  any  immigration 
reform  legislation  will  be  the  kind  of  reform  that  will  truly  satisfy  the  American 
public. 

As  a  member  of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  I  have  been  closely  following  U.S.  im- 
migration policy  for  the  last  four  years.  It  is  an  understatement  to  say  I  have  been 
less  than  pleased  with  our  policy  or  legislative  attempts  at  reform,  i.e.  the  Refugee 
Reform  Act  of  1980.  My  frustrations  over  our  immigration  policy  reached  its  highest 
level  after  visiting  Ft.  McCoy  in  northern  Wisconsin.  Ft.  McCoy  was  one  of  the  refu- 
gee camps  where  Cuban-Haitian  entrants  detained  until  sponsors  could  be  found. 
The  visit  proved  to  be  a  real  "eye-opener"  with  regard  to  the  lack  of  planning,  co- 
ordination, and  foresight  by  the  federal  government.  The  Ft.  McCoy  experience 
clearly  showed  the  inadequacy  of  our  immigration  laws  relative  to  refugees. 

It  is  this  experience  which  convinced  me  that  any  immigration  reform  legislation 
must  contain  a  provision  which  places  a  cap  on  legal  immigration  which  includes 
refugees. 

One  of  the  major  criticisms  the  American  public  has  with  our  present  immigra- 
tion law  is  that  we  have  "different  strokes  for  different  folks."  If  a  cap  on  legal  im- 
migration is  not  enacted,  then  the  current  number  of  legal  immigrants  entering  our 
country  will  continue  to  mushroom.  In  1977,  legal  immigration  was  399,000.  In  1980, 
it  was  808,000.  In  1981  it  was  697,000.  While  the  present  administration  has  made  a 
determined  effort  to  reduce  these  numbers,  there  is  no  law  which  places  a  limit  on 
the  number  of  legal  immigrants,  including  refugees,  which  our  country  will  accept. 

The  increasing  number  of  legal  immigrants  have  entered  our  country  at  a  time 
when  there  have  not  been  enough  jobs  to  go  around  for  our  own  citizens.  "Compas- 
sion fatigue"  has  set  in.  Americans  are  having  a  difficult  time  understanding  why 
our  government  continues  to  allow  more  people  in  this  country  who  compete  for 
jobs  and  place  a  drain  on  the  treasuries  of  our  state,  local,  and  federal  governments. 
Public  opinion  polls  show  that  80  percent  of  the  American  people  want  reductions 
in  legal  admissions. 

The  lack  of  a  cap  on  legal  immigration  goes  hand  in  hand  with  the  method  of 
allocating  immigrants  other  than  refugees.  H.R.  1510  retains  the  current  system 
and  does  not  limit  the  5th  preference.  Currently,  there  is  a  5th  preference  backlog 
of  over  700,000,  which  is  continually  growing.  Less  than  one-half  of  this  backlog  are 
the  actual  brothers  and  sisters  of  U.S.  citizens.  The  rest  are  spouses  and  children  of 
these  brothers  and  sisters.  If  the  5th  preference  is  not  modified,  then  closer  family 
members  will  continue  to  have  problems  being  united.  If  family  reunification  is  to 
be  a  preferred  public  policy,  it  should  be  for  the  closest  relatives — not  a  loophole  to 
bring  "every  relative"  into  the  country. 

Any  immigration  reform  legislation  must  include  strong  employer  sanctions.  They 
need  to  be  strong  to  burn  off  the  economic  magnet  of  jobs.  The  employer  sanctions 
in  H.R.  1510,  which  is  basically  the  legislation  which  was  reported  out  of  the  House 


281 

Judiciary  Committee  in  the  97th  Congress,  were  considerably  weakened.  Thus,  with- 
out some  type  of  economic  deterrent,  illegal  aliens  will  continue  to  be  a  problem. 
I  have  serious  reservations  about  the  provision  in  H.R.  1510,  which  grants  amnes- 
ty or  legalizes  millions  of  illegal  aliens.  The  costs  of  amnesty  are  unclear  because  it 
is  impossible  to  know  how  many  illegal  aliens  will  take  advantage  of  this  program. 
The  CBO  estimates  the  number  of  illegal  aliens  to  be  41/2  million;  Justice  Depart- 
ment estimates  this  number  to  be  6  million;  and  other  estimates  vary  from  8  to  10 
to  12  million  illegal  aliens.  Obviously,  the  cost  will  be  astronomical.  These  costs  will 
have  to  be  absorbed  by  the  federal,  state,  and  local  governments,  which  are  already 
subject  to  enormous  pressures  to  cut  their  budgets  and  reduce  spending.  These  addi- 
tional costs  could  bankrupt  some  jurisdictions. 

Aside  from  the  costs,  amnesty  is  a  bad  precedent.  It  shows  our  country  is  not  seri- 
ous about  our  immigration  laws.  Additionally,  there  is  the  fear  that  the  Supreme 
Court  decision  of  Plyler,  Superintendent,  Tyler  Independent  School  District  et  al.  v. 
Doe,  Guardian,  which  forced  the  state  of  Texas  to  provide  free  education  benefits  to 
children  of  illegal  aliens,  will  be  extended  to  include  other  benefits.  This  is  yet  an- 
other incentive  for  a  family  to  move  illegally  into  the  United  States. 

It  has  been  said  the  cost  of  the  amnesty  program  are  overstated  because  a  sub- 
stantial number  of  illegal  aliens  will  not  take  advantage  of  amnesty.  If  this  is  the 
case,  then  legalization  should  not  be  enacted  because  it  will  be  ineffective  and  won't 
solve  the  problem  of  illegal  aliens. 

To  address  these  and  other  problems,  I  will  reintroduce  today  the  Immigration 
Reform  Act  which  in  the  last  Congress,  with  a  few  changes,  was  H.R.  4162. 

The  Immigration  Reform  Act  address  the  problem  of  a  cap  on  legal  immigration, 
the  5th  preference,  employer  sanction,  and  amnesty. 

The  Immigration  Reform  Act  addresses  the  problem  of  a  cap  on  legal  immigration 
the  5th  preference,  employer  sanction,  and  amnesty. 

This  legislation  requires  the  President  to  send  to  Congress  by  July  1st  each  year, 
a  proposed  immigration  plan  to  take  effect  within  30  calendar  days  unless  each 
House  of  Congress  passes  a  resolution  stating  its  disapproval.  It  also  provides  for  a 
numerical  limitation  on  legal  immigration  of  not  less  than  300,000  nor  more  than 
420,000.  A  special  provision  relating  to  emergency  refugee  situations  makes  this  a 
flexible  ceiling.  . 

The  Immigration  Reform  Act  limits  5th  preference  to  unmarried  brothers  and  sis- 
ters. Additionally,  it  provides  for  strong  sanctions  against  employers  who  knowingly 
hire,  recruit,  or  employ  any  alien  who  has  not  lawfully  been  admitted  to  the  U.S.  A 
fine  of  $500  for  the  first  violation  and  $20,000  for  subsequent  violations  could  be  im- 
posed. This  legislation  would  not  preempt  state  or  localities  from  the  adoption  and 
enforcement  of  laws  prohibiting  or  restricting  the  employment  of  aliens  in  the  U.S. 
Finally,  this  legislation  deals  with  the  illegal  alien  problem  by  moving  the  regis- 
try date  from  1948  to  1973. 

Moving  up  the  registry  date  has  several  advantages  over  the  amnesty.  First,  INS 
is  familiar  with  the  procedures  and  paperwork.  Additionally,  an  alien  who  desires 
this  relief  must  affirmatively  come  forward.  Third,  registry  would  be  available  for 
all  aliens  who  show  good  moral  character  and  continuous  residence  since  1973.  Thus 
it  would  be  difficult  for  an  alien  to  provide  fraudulent  papers.  An  alien  who  has 
been  here  for  10  years  is  better  assimilated  in  our  country.  The  registry  date  could 
periodically  be  updated  in  an  effort  to  better  deal  with  this  problem. 

Mr.  Chairman,  these  provisions  are  only  the  highlights  of  my  legislation.  I  have 
here  a  summary  of  the  Immigration  Reform  Act,  which  I  would  like  to  appear  in 
the  hearing  record  following  my  testimony. 

In  conclusion,  I  would  hope  the  U.S.  could  continue,  as  much  as  possible,  its  "open 
door"  policy  toward  the  displaced,  the  persecuted,  and  the  ambitious  of  the  world. 
However,  our  economic  and  resource  situation  dictates  that  business  as  usual 
cannot  continue.  Immigration  reform  must  be  accomplished. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  I  thank  you  very  much,  Jim,  for  that  interesting 
testimony.  I  yield  myself  5  minutes  for  some  general  observations. 

The  idea  of  a  cap  is  not  new.  It  was  proposed  as  an  alternative  in 
our  discussion,  last  year.  Your  number  of  not  less  than  300,000  nor 
more  than  420,000  puts  the  upper  range  of  420,000  in  the  category 
of  the  numbers  coming  in  now— the  preference  system  of  270,000 
plus  about  150,000  coming  in  as  immediate  relatives. 

So  if  I  understand  this  cap  correctly,  which  includes  both  refu- 
gees and  immigrants,  you  have  what  I  have  heard  characterized  as 


i8-.';sfi    n_8s_ 


282 

an  unseemly  struggle  between  family  members  and  refugees  for 
these  available  slots. 

Now,  perhaps  you  can  help  us  for  a  few  minutes.  Do  you  see  that 
struggle  ensuing?  Do  you  think  that  it  is  not  a  correct  characteriza- 
tion of  the  total  cap  on  entry  into  the  country  legally? 

Mr.  Sensenbrenner.  I  don't  see  that  it  is  an  unseemly  struggle. 
What  I  wish  to  avoid  is  what  happened  in  1980  when  we  had  the 
preference  immigrants,  the  family  reunification  plus  over  200,000 
refugees,  plus  over  130,000  Cubans  who  were  put  kind  of  in  a  legal 
limbo  status  of  applicants  for  political  asylum. 

Under  the  present  system,  there  is  no  ceiling  whatsoever  on  the 
number  of  legal  immigrants  that  we  allow  into  this  country.  It  just 
depends  upon  what  slot  you  are  able  to  fit  yourself  in. 

Any  true  refugee  reform  has  got  to  have  that  kind  of  a  cap,  and 
when  there  is  a  crisis  due  to  an  exodus  from  a  place  like  Vietnam 
or  Haiti  or  Cuba,  then  I  believe  that  there  has  got  to  be  some  kind 
of  compensation  in  reduced  numbers  of  the  legal  immigrants  under 
the  preference  system.  That  is  something  that  I  think  should  be 
left  flexible  and  should  be  left  to  the  administration  that  is  in 
power  at  the  time. 

If  there  is  a  need,  then  Congress  and  only  Congress  should  in- 
crease the  420,000  number  cap  either  on  a  temporary  basis  or  on  a 
permanent  basis.  I  just  think  that  we  as  the  people's  elected  repre- 
sentatives should  have  the  final  say  on  this  subject  rather  than 
having  the  present  leaky  system  that  allows  the  administration  to 
bring  in  unlimited  numbers  through  a  consultation  process,  but 
which  does  not  give  us  a  vote  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Let  me  ask  you  this,  Jim.  I  think  you  said  in  our 
debates  last  year  that  if  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky  and  the 
gentleman  from  Wyoming  remained  as  chairmen  of  these  immigra- 
tion subcommittees,  you  would  not  be  quite  as  concerned  about  the 
consultation  process.  But  you  are  looking  to  institutionalize  what, 
in  essence,  is  a  legislative  veto,  to  be  sure  the  Congress  has  the 
final  say. 

Mr.  Sensenbrenner.  Well,  I  would  just  point  out  that  the  distin- 
guished predecessor  of  the  gentleman  from  Kentucky,  who  is  no 
longer  with  us,  was  someone  who  could  not  say  no,  and  therein  lay 
some  of  the  problems  in  1979  and  1980. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Well,  just  to  make  the  record,  from  1980  fiscal  year 
when  212,000  refugees  were  admitted  that  number  has  gone  down 
159,000  in  1981,  to  90,000  last  year,  to  a  ceiling  of  90,000  this  year. 
And  next  year  the  administration  is  talking  in  a  range  of  70,000  to 
80,000. 

So  the  consultation  process  has  engaged  itself.  I  think  it  has,  in 
part,  because  there  is  a  sword  of  Damocles  hanging  over  it,  which 
is  the  presence  of  a  potential  legislative  veto.  But  I  think  also  be- 
cause both  sides,  the  Congress  and  the  administration,  have 
become  more  attuned  to  what  really  an  the  needs  of  a  refugee  pro- 
gram, which  is  not  just  moving  people  in  but  resettling  those 
people  in  jobs  they  can  handle. 

Mr.  Sensenbrenner.  And  in  places  other  than  south  Florida  or 
southern  California. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Or  Ramsey  County,  Minn.,  I  guess. 


283 

Let  me  perhaps  ask  one  more  thing,  Jim.  You  suggest  that  there 
be  not  a  legaUzation  program  as  we  defme  it,  but  a  change  of  the 
registry  date;  is  that  your  thought? 

Mr.  Sensenbrenner.  Yes. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  To  use  the  registry  date  that  we  adopted  last  year, 

1973? 

Mr.  Sensenbrenner.  Yes.  My  proposal  does  advance  the  registry 
date  from  1948  to  1973.  I  fear  the  consequences  of  a  blanket  amnes- 
ty or  legalization  of  present  illegal  aliens. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Do  you  see  ours  as  a  blanket? 

Mr.  Sensenbrenner.  Yes. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Even  though  it  is  a  case-by-case  study? 

Mr.  Sensenbrenner.  Even  though  it  is  a  case-by-case  study. 

First  of  all,  I  don't  think  that  a  substantial  number— meaning 
over  50  percent  of  the  total  number  of  illegals  who  would  be  eligi- 
ble—would apply  for  legalization. 

Second,  I  am  concerned  with  that  kind  of  a  legalization  program 
coupled  with  no  change  in  the  fifth  preference  status.  In  5  years 
and  10  years  from  now,  the  flood  gates  would  be  open  for  practical- 
ly unrestricted  immigration  of  the  brothers  and  the  in-laws  and  the 
in-laws  of  the  in-laws  as  more  people  become  U.S.  citizens  and  take 
advantage  of  the  current  fifth  preference  law. 

Legalization  plus  fifth  preferences  will  give  the  double  whammy 
to  a  law  that  is  well-intended  to  control  immigration,  but,  in  fact, 
will  not  control  immigration  and  will  increasingly  fail  in  its  stated 
goals  as  more  people  become  eligible  under  the  current  fifth  prefer- 
ence status. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  Well,  my  time  has  expired.  I  guess  I  look  at  it 
somewhat  differently.  I  look  at  ours  as  not  a  blanket  amnesty  but  a 
legalization  in  a  case-by-case  approach. 

I,  of  course,  did  originally,  as  the  gentleman  notes,  support  a 
change  in  the  fifth  preference  to  strike  it  prospectively,  clearing 
the  current  category.  That,  of  course,  in  the  wisdom  of  the  full 
committee  last  year,  was  taken  out  of  the  bill. 

One  thing  about  the  fifth  preference,  of  course,  to  be  noted  is 
that  it  is  only  24  percent  of  the  total  number  of  270,000.  So  if  a 
legalization  program  worked  for  these  people,  who  became  perma- 
nent residents  and  then  citizens,  they  could  petition  under  the  fifth 
preference  for  brothers  and  sisters.  But  they  would  just  stand  in  a 
longer  and  longer  line.  The  pressure  might  build  up  for  some  to 
sneak  in,  but  the  truth  of  the  matter  it  is  not  an  unlimited  catego- 
ry. 

Mr.  Sensenbrenner.  I  am  aware  of  that.  Presently  a  700,000 
person  backlog  in  fifth  preference.  This  backlog  will  increase  with 
legalization  making  more  people  eligible  to  bring  their  brothers 
and  sisters  and  spouses  and  children  in. 

The  pressure  will  then  be  on  the  Congress  to  increase  the  24  per- 
cent or  to  bring  the  backlog  in  rather  than  having  people  wait  for 
year  after  year,  particularly  in  embassies  where  a  large  number  of 
people  who  are  legalized  have  originally  come  from,  specifically 
Mexico,  Haiti,  other  Central  American  nations. 
Mr.  Mazzoli.  Thank  you  very  much,  sir. 
The  gentleman  from  California. 
Mr.  Lungren.  Thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman. 


284 

First  of  all,  I  ask  unanimous  consent  for  the  subcommittee  to 
permit  coverage  of  this  hearing  by  radio  broadcast,  television 
broadcast  and  still  photography. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  It  is  so  ordered,  without  objection. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  Jim,  welcome  to  this  continuing  round  of  discus- 
sions on  what  we  ought  to  do  about  the  immigration  situation  that 
we  find  ourselves  in.  I  know  that  you  came  to  Congress  the  same 
time  as  I  did  with  some  interest  in  this  issue,  which  was  not  being 
dealt  with  at  that  time.  I  appreciate  your  continuing  interest  in  it. 

We  do  have  some  differences  of  opinion  on  some  of  the  major  fac- 
tors here. 

Let  me  just  ask  about  your  question  on  the  legalization  program 
that  is  in  this  bill.  You  do  believe  that  we  ought  to  move  the  regis- 
try date  up  to  1973,  but  nonetheless  that  would  leave  us  with  a 
question  of  substantial  numbers  of  illegal  aliens  who  have  come  to 
this  country  since  1973  and  up  to  1980,  a  category  that  would  be 
taken  care  of  under  the  legalization  program  in  the  bill. 

What  do  you  suggest  we  do  with  these  individuals,  particularly 
in  the  context  of  the  penalties  that  would  be  taken  against  employ- 
ers that  only  refer  to  prospective  employment?  That  is,  under  the 
bill  as  it  came  out  of  the  committee,  or  as  it  recently  came  out  of 
the  subcommittee  and  introduced,  only  deals  with  prospective  em- 
ployment. 

Mr.  Sensenbrenner.  There  are  two  things  that  attract  illegal 
aliens  to  the  United  States.  One  is  a  better  standard  of  living  and 
the  potential  eligibility  for  U.S.  welfare  benefits.  The  second  is  jobs 
and  the  cash  that  is  paid. 

If  we  are  ever  to  get  control  of  our  borders,  we  are  going  to  have 
to  get  at  those  two  things  that  act  as  a  magnet  to  draw  people  into 
this  country,  or  convince  people  who  have  entered  legally  to  over- 
stay their  visas  and  simply  not  go  home. 

I  am  not  sure  that  the  amnesty  program  contained  in  the  sub- 
committee's legislation  will  be  effective.  I  also  think  that  there 
should  be  some  kind  of  review  to  make  sure  that  these  people  are 
of  good  moral  character  and  have  not  been  leading  a  life  of  crime, 
including  organized  crime,  while  they  are  in  this  country. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  That  would  be  taken  care  of  under  the  committee 
version? 

Mr.  Sensenbrenner.  Yes.  It  also  would  be  taken  care  of  under 
the  advancing  of  the  registry  date  version  because  the  registry  date 
is  a  program  that  has  been  utilized  in  the  past  and  utilized  success- 
fully in  the  past.  Rather  than  doing  it  almost  all  in  one  fell  swoop, 
which  either  the  1977  or  1980  date  would  accomplish,  I  would  be  in 
favor  of  subsequent  advances  of  the  registry  date  from  its  1973 
period  if  going  from  1948  to  1973  works. 

We  have  a  program  on  which  we  have  got  a  track  record.  I  think 
we  should  see  how  well  advancing  the  registry  date  works. 

If  it  works  well  up  to  1973,  then  we  should  advance  it  perhaps 
two  years  at  a  time  to  get  to  the  1980  date  that  the  subcommittee 
has  suggested  with  their  program,  but  I  don't  think  it  should  be 
done  all  at  once. 

Mr.  LuNGREN.  Well,  let  me  ask  you  two  things  about  that. 


285 

First,  you  know  how  difficult  it  is  for  us  to  get  any  meaningful 
legislation  on  immigration  through  the  Congress,  given  how  reluc- 
tant the  Congress  is  to  act  on  this  whole  issue. 

There  are  some  that  argue,  including  myself,  that  we  have  got 
an  opportunity  to  enact  a  comprehensive  package  now.  We  had 
better  take  this  opportunity,  and  clear  out  or  wipe  the  slate  clean 
with  respect  to  those  many  illegal  aliens  who  have  come  in  up 
until  1980,  because  we  were  not  enforcing  the  law.  Otherwise  we 
will  always  have  that  permanent  underclass  here,  and  even  though 
we  may  move  up  the  registry  date  on  a  regular  basis,  you  are  still 
going  to  have  the  group. 

And  wouldn't  it  be  better  to  take  care  of  that  situation  now  and 
henceforth  make  it  the  policy  of  the  United  States  that  we  will,  in 
fact,  enforce  the  law.  Those  that  come  over  here  should  not  enter- 
tain any  prospects  of  us  having  a  future  amnesty  or  legalization 
program  because  we  have  been  generous  to  the  point  of  acceptance 
and  tolerance  of  the  American  people. 

Mr.  Sensenbrenner.  That  would  be  fine  if  we  had  the  border 
patrol  and  INS  personnel  to  enforce  control  over  our  borders  and 
to  stop  the  flow  of  illegal  aliens  postpassage  and  signing  of  this  bill. 
We  don't  have  that,  and  I  think  we  all  recognize  we  don't. 

Regarding  amnesty,  I  think  the  wrong  message  is  being  sent 
south  of  the  border.  That  is,  if  you  sneak  under  the  fence  and 
are  able  to  stay  here  for  a  given  period  of  time — 3  years  has  been 
proposed — then  you  become  a  permanent  resident,  and  5  years 
from  now  you  will  become  a  U.S.  citizen. 

However,  the  Mexican  who  wanted  to  obey  our  laws  applied  for  a 
visa  to  enter  the  United  States  at  the  Embassy  in  Mexico  City  and 
has  been  sitting  around  for  an  excess  of  10  years  waiting  for  his 
number  to  come  up.  He  is  told  he  is  out  of  luck. 

Now,  what  kind  of  message  we  are  sending  south  of  the  border?  I 
think  it  is  the  wrong  message. 

Point  No.  2,  comprehensive  legislation  is  fine.  I  think  there  were 
too  many  straws  on  the  camel's  back.  It  was  a  little  too  comprehen- 
sive in  the  last  Congress.  That  is  why  it  never  did  get  passed  late 
in  the  session. 

For  example,  there  are  a  number  of  us  that  will  not  vote  for  leg- 
islation that  contains  a  blanket  amnesty.  We  are  strange  bedfel- 
lows with  other  folks  who  object  to  the  employer  sanctions  provi- 
sion in  the  bill,  and  perhaps  splitting  this  thing  up  might  be  a  little 
bit  more  effective. 

Mr.  Mazzoli.  The  gentleman's  time  has  expired. 

While  the  gentleman  from  New  York  gets  his  bearings  here,  let 
me  yield  myself  a  couple  of  seconds. 

Again,  with  great  respect  to  you,  Jim,  I  really  do  not  think  ours 
is  a  blanket  amnesty;  unlike  the  kinds  of  blanket  entries  that  were 
permitted  from  Southeast  Asia,  blanket  statements  that  all  people 
who  left  a  country  were,  per  se,  refugees  entitled  to  entry  into  our 
country. 

We  have  a  situation  in  our  bill  where  everyone  has  to  be  exam- 
ined. They  have  to  be  screened  against  all  the  exclusions  that  are 
in  the  Immigration  Act  on  a  case-by-case  basis.  We  may  differ  on 
that  point. 


286 

One  of  the  things  that  has  led  us  not  to  accept  a  change  in  the 
registry  date  as  the  only  kind  of  legalization  program  is  the  test  of 
whether  a  person  would  qualify  under  a  change  of  registry  date  is 
less  stringent  that  the  test  applied  to  people  under  the  legalization. 

The  test  under  legalization  in  our  bill  is  a  list  of  exclusions,  in- 
cluding public  charge.  The  tests  applied  to  those  coming  in  with 
the  change  of  registry  is  just  four  simple  points,  and  we  think  they 
might  be  more  inclusive  than  they  really  need  to  be. 

Another  reason  that  we  have  been  chary  about  going  to  the  reg- 
istry change  is  because  there  has  been  a  question  raised,  and  you 
have  raised  it  yourself,  about  the  cost  of  legalization — the  amount 
of  people  who  would  go  on  some  kind  of  welfare  or  relief.  If  we  un- 
derstand the  registry  language,  people  who  would  go  on  to  relief, 
having  been  legalized  through  the  change  of  registry,  would  prob- 
ably not  have  those  welfare  payments  borne  by  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment. Under  the  subcommittee  bill,  we  do  particularly  say  that 
States  and  localities  have  an  opportunity  to  recover  some  of  their 
costs,  whatever  they  might  be  from  a  reimbursement  program. 

If  we  are  wrong  about  those  legalized,  if  these  people  do  become 
takers  rather  than  givers,  then  it  is  our  belief  that  the  States  ought 
to  be  protected.  And  a  change  of  registry  date  may  not  afford  that 
kind  of  protection. 

That  is  one  of  the  reasons  for  going  for  our  kind  of  a  program 
here. 

The  gentleman  from  New  York? 

Mr.  Fish.  Thank  you. 

Mr.  Mazzou.  The  gentleman  from  Wisconsin  indicated  he  has 
got  a  9:30  meeting,  so  we  have  just  about  5  minutes. 

Mr.  Fish.  Two  minutes.  I  have  a  9:30,  too. 

I  understand  from  your  testimony  that  employer  sanctions  in 
H.R.  1510  were  considerably  weakened.  Would  you  care  to  suggest 
changes  for  these  provisions  that  you  favor? 

Mr.  Sensenbrenner.  The  bill  that  I  will  introduce  this  afternoon 
has  a  $500  fine  for  the  first  offense  and  a  $20,000  fine  on  the  em- 
ployer for  each  subsequent  offense.  I  do  think  we  ought  to  throw 
the  book  at  employers  who  knowingly  hire  illegal  aliens  and  usual- 
ly pay  them  in  cash  and  do  not  deduct  the  withholding  and  social 
security  taxes  that  are  prescribed  by  law. 

While  I  supported  the  employer  sanctions  in  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee reported  bill  of  the  last  Congress,  I  had  the  distinct  impres- 
sion that  there  was  a  paperwork  burden  and  the  establishment  of 
defenses  that.  No.  1,  made  the  employer  the  policeman  rather  than 
the  government  the  policeman. 

No.  2,  allowed  any  clever  lawyer  who  believed  in  the  maxim  of 
when  your  client  is  guilty,  you  delay  and  delay  to  do  just  that,  to 
prevent  the  actual  criminal  sanctions  from  accruing  after  going 
through  the  citation  and  the  warning  to  the  civil  sanction  to  the 
criminal  sanctions. 

I  would  hope  that  when  we  deal  with  the  subject  of  employer 
sanctions  in  this  Congress  we  would  reduce  the  paperwork  burden. 
We  would  have  the  government  do  more  of  the  policing  of  this  and 
we  also  would  accelerate  the  penalties  so  that  there  would  be  more 
than  a  tap  on  the  wrist  after  the  first  offense